Thoughts On Sexual Variety

[argive99]

There are threads in the Misc. section that deal with dating and marriage. I have a different question pertaining to relationships and sexuality. I have had some bad relationships in the past. I blame myself. My selection was poor and my relationship skills were terrible. Lately however, to be honest, I have been involved in nothing but superficial, sexual "flings" with women of similar mindsets. I know I'm going to get lambasted for this, but I am having a ball.

Now, I am an Objectivist of 10 years, since I'm 19, and I have read all the material on romantic love in the Objectivist literature (including Branden's work on the subject). I agree with all of it and I agree that the ideal relationship b/w a man and a woman is a value-sharing, sexually exclusive romantic one. I truly want that kind of relationship, but again to be honest, I don't want it now. I am finally at a point in my life where after my graduate studies and my early years at my carreer, I make excellent money and have a ton of confidence. Also, because of the diet and training knowledge I have accumulated over the years (and good genetics) I am in excellent shape. It blows my mind how easy it is to attract female attention now when 7 or 8 years ago I couldn't get arrested.

To state it frankly, I really enjoy bieng the object of many women's sexual desire. And, I wont lie, I really enjoy the sex. Maybe some men can relate to this but I can't tell you how ego-gratifying it is when 20 year old girls look at you with that "wow he's dreamy look." When I was 20, I couldn't buy a date. And also, as I push 30, 20 year olds as a group look so much more attractive.

Here's my quandry. Is it immoral to go through periods of "sexual variety"? Is there no rational reason why a man shouldn't enjoy revelling in his virility? I am misleading no one. I am playing no games. It is beyond description to state how easy it is to find willing women who want nothing more than enjoyable sexual encounters with no comittment. Actually, in the present culture I sometimes debate with myself if these types of women are more prevalent than one's seeking a romantic commitment. So, there is no lying involved. And personally I don't feel like I'm harming my own psychology. I feel happier than ever. I have experienced the pit in your stomach and the general feeling of anxiety that a troubled relationship can produce. As a result, before I search for the ideal, I find it relaxing and enjoyable to experience, well I don't know how else to say it but "sexual potency."

Now I know by raising this issue that I run the risk of being called a "whim worshipper", a valueless playboy, an ersatz Objectivist, a psychologically dsyfunctional person, etc, etc. Personally I feel like I am none of those. I have spent 10 years of my life studying and struggling to apply Objectivism. If I am not an Objectivist than I want to know who is. But right now, forgive the experssion but I'm having a blast and I am truly happy.

So please, without condemning me morally, try to focus on the question about whether there are periods in a person's life where sexual variety can be a positive value. All I can say in my defense is that I am happier than I have been in years.

[Elle]

I agree with all of it and I agree that the ideal relationship b/w a man and a woman is a value-sharing, sexually exclusive romantic one. I truly want that kind of relationship, but again to be honest, I don't want it now.

My question to you is this. If these women are so easy to obtain, then are they really what you're after? I would ask yourself if the reason you enjoy exercising your ability to seduce has anything to do with the power you feel you wield when these twenty year olds are looking at you with that "he's so dreamy" look.

As a woman I can relate to this, mainly because at 19 I'm the one getting checked out the majority of the time. At first it's a rush and a novelty, but after awhile you might begin to wonder if those idle stares and wandering eyes really deserve to look at you at all; I do.

[Tom Rexton]

I would ask myself why I enjoy promiscuity (or what you euphemistically refer to as "sexual variety"). Revelling in one's verility through promiscuity does reflect more of a playboy's character. Though, of course, I have barely given this much thought. Nor do I have any experience in this at all (I'm only a junior in high school ).

[AwakeAndFree]

First of all, with a post like this - which is obviously honest and searching for the truth - nobody can call you a whim worshiper.

I do feel, however, that you are very likely be harming yourself psychologically. Not because sex is bad, but because you start treating it as a mere physical experience (obviously not all the women share your values - and so with them you cannot experience the spiritual part).

Sex is, and should be, more than that.

I imagine you didn't write your post without being bothered at least a little by it. You probably feel it afterwards when you lie in bed next to someone you don't know or particularly appreciate. You may feel it when you must engage in a conversation that doesn't interest you just to get to the physical part.

It is perfectly ok to go through periods of shorter term relationships while searching for the right partner... but I think the minumum requirement is to find someone you can admire not purely for physical attributes.

Even if you are still looking for "ego boosters" from girls - you don't have to sleep with them to know what they think of how you look. You can enjoy their admiring looks without taking advantage of every one.

It only means that when the time comes, you will have no problem attracting the RIGHT girl.

[Betsy]

I have had some bad relationships in the past. I blame myself. My selection was poor and my relationship skills were terrible. Lately however, to be honest, I have been involved in nothing but superficial, sexual "flings" with women of similar mindsets. I know I'm going to get lambasted for this, but I am having a ball.

For a man -- but not for a woman -- there can be value in what you are doing. Men have strong and immediate sexual needs and their gratification IS satisfying. That is a good thing, but watch out.

I know many men who once were where you are now, and very happily so. And then they met HER. All of a sudden they were obsessed and their desires for variety and other women -- well, they didn't disappear, but they just didn't seem to matter any more. They became concerned that she might leave or find someone else and it scared them. Now was great, but they wanted forever. They had to OWN her.

And so they made the commitment, got married, and settled down. Yeah, they had great sex in their single days, but now they have something better: great sex, great conversations, great empathy, great plans, and a great long-term relationship with a soulmate.

[Ed from OC]

Although I've been thinking about this issue for a while as well, I can't claim to have a clear answer yet. I am certainly open to persuasion on this topic.

Is there a context in which promiscuity is appropriate? I think so. If there is no near-term or immediate prospect of finding a soul mate, it would be self-sacrificial to turn down ALL less-than-ideal sexual encounters. The alternative would be immense frustration and repression.

That said, there are guys who gear their whole lives around an endless string of superficial encounters, a la Sam Malone from "Cheers." There's an important, essential distinction to be made, with a dividing line between the firsthander temporarilly settling for the less-than-ideal-but-best-available and the secondhander looking to impress with conquests (including boosting his ego with the admiration of women who BY HIS OWN STANDARDS are not close to ideal).

There are clear benefits to promiscuity:

1. Sex!

2. Education, up to a point, in bedroom matters and judging partners. You may also improve your ability to interact with women you find attractive. Some guys are quite shy early on and place women on pedestals. Coming to see women as real individuals instead is a definite benefit.

3. Value clarification. By "experimenting" with a variety of women, you can flesh out the details of your own personal preferences. Doing that may actually aid your search for a soulmate, since you have a clearer idea of what to look for, where to look, how to approach, etc., as well as what to avoid. Maybe the women you previously considered "classy" you come to see are just gold diggers.

4. You may reach a point (or go through another phase) where the brief encounter is no longer rewarding. I suspect that in a subsequent "serious" relationship, the temptation to cheat would be lowered even more by your firsthand knowledge of brief encounters. The idle wondering of whether the grass is greener somewhere else may be less of an issue compared to someone with less experience.

... and for the hazards:

1. Health. Just one mistake in judgement could be lethal. With caution and good judgement, the odds are against it, though.

2. It is possible to be so busy pursuing one night stands that a chance for a real relationship slips by unnoticed or other high values are treated poorly.

3. Even being upfront and honest about the encounter doesn't always prevent one of you from encountering emotional pain. Perhaps what began as a brief fling you start thinking could be more, only to find that she doesn't feel the same way. Ouch.

4. "Fatal Attraction": Some women who are "easy" have psychological issues, perhaps a history of abuse. They may seem fine for a brief fling, but in the long run turn out to be far more trouble. The bad girls can be fun, but watch out.

The possible hazards about which I'm not certain at all:

5. Dealing with the future soulmate (should such be found). If the issue of previous partners comes up, what do you do? Is it any of her business? If you have had a lot of partners, does it trivialize this new relationship? Does it imply your standards are too low?

6. Your own psyche. Can having multiple flings damage your own emotional or psychological health?

I don't know the answers to 5 or 6, but 1 through 4 should definitely be considered.

Anyone care to offer answers to 5 or 6, or add to the list?

[Ed from OC]

Betsy wrote:

For a man -- but not for a woman -- there can be value in what you are doing.

Why not for a woman?

If it is wrong for a woman, wouldn't it then be wrong for a man to encourage a woman to do something harmful to herself?

[stephen_speicher]

"Ed from OC,"

I do not think "promiscuity" is the right word to describe the point that you make. The connotation of promiscuity is that of often repeated indiscriminate behavior, and that would be wrong. I suspect you are suggesting, in effect, that if you have not yet found your highest value in a woman it is fine to enjoy the pleasures of a lesser woman, as long as you are clear as to exactly what value to you that woman represents. If you were to often and indiscriminantly engage in sex, without regard for and absent of knowledge about the reasons for the act, doing so would be programming your mind and body to respond to anything but that woman of highest value which you have yet to meet.

(I think the above also answers your question 6.)

As to "Dealing with the future soulmate," I suspect that when you meet you will find that what you are and what you will be, will be a lot more important to you both, than what happened in the past.

[Betsy]

Why not for a woman?

If it is wrong for a woman, wouldn't it then be wrong for a man to encourage a woman to do something harmful to herself?

Sexual involvement for a woman isn't "wrong" but it is very different than it is for a man.

For one thing, it is much more of a commitment. For a man, sex is a value sought, just like any other. For a woman, SHE is the value sought. She's giving her whole self -- body and soul -- to a man.

Also, she is more vulnerable and less in control. She needs a sense of trust more than a man does. As someone who believes in love at first sight (as did Ayn Rand), I know trust can develop rather quickly, but it is always a big deal issue for a woman.

Men are also more easily aroused by perceptual stimuli and their sexual needs are immediate and insistent. A woman's are more optional and dependent on psychological issues like admiration and trust. The way I explain this sometimes is that men and women both have a need for sex but, for a man, sex is like food. He certainly would prefer the finest gourmet meal, but if he can't get it, he's not going to starve. He'll go for some fast food instead. For a woman, sex is like art. She only wants the finest, best expression of her own sense of life. Otherwise, she's not going out of her way for it.

[Capitalism Forever]

Now I know by raising this issue that I run the risk of being called a "whim worshipper", a valueless playboy, an ersatz Objectivist, a psychologically dsyfunctional person, etc, etc.

LOL Been expecting old Uncle Cap Forever to show up on the thread and rap you on yer skirt-chasing fingertips, eh?

Well, you sound like an honest and happy man, so I'll just congratulate you and wish you further good luck with the opposite sex. Personally, I couldn't imagine getting intimate with anyone but the sexiest, loveliest, and most beautiful of all Objectivist gals, and I see absolutely no reason why I should waste any of my time or energy on other women. But I don't mind it if you approach things differently--that way I won't have to compete with you for her! ;)

[AwakeAndFree]

Cap Forever,

Don't be so sure - he didn't say he's not interested in Objectivist gals... your gal could be there with him right now!

[AshRyan]

To state it frankly, I really enjoy bieng the object of many women's sexual desire. And, I wont lie, I really enjoy the sex. Maybe some men can relate to this but I can't tell you how ego-gratifying it is when 20 year old girls look at you with that "wow he's dreamy look." When I was 20, I couldn't buy a date...It is beyond description to state how easy it is to find willing women who want nothing more than enjoyable sexual encounters with no comittment.

Show-off.

Seriously though, I must say that I can't really understand your point of view. I don't consider myself terribly attractive, physically--I'm not in horrible shape, but I'm not in really great shape either (although I hope to change that), and in terms of frame, I'm pretty small for a man (only about 5'7" tall)--but I could still get laid easily if I wanted to. It just depends on how low your standards are. For me, it would be meaningless to take a woman for whom I was only a body (or in the case of one psychologically-disturbed ex-girlfriend, as I later found out, a sperm donor). It is much more meaningful if you've earned the trust and respect of a woman who does not give away such things so easily. Wouldn't your efforts be better spent trying to find and woo such a woman? And if your only motivation for not taking that more difficult (but correspondingly more rewarding) course is fear of being hurt emotionally due to earlier relationships, isn't that an irrational motive that you should be trying to overcome?

[FaSheezy]

I do not agree that a man should be permitted to have sex with multiple partners and a woman should not. Say a woman doesnt think of sex in terms of admiration and such, like a good friend of mine, and just has sex with people because they are 'hot'? Sex is a celebration of your values, and that means that a rational, objective person would only want to celebrate those values with someone who understands what that means. As for the knowledge that you gain from many sexual encounters.. thats a moot point. The sex will be good regardless, i assure you. Provided it is had through rational, objective means. The good feelings come not only from the physical aspect, but from the emotional aspect, the fact that you know the person who is possessing you, and that you are possessing someone who is worthy of your love.

Just because someone is able to force a woman into sex, doesnt mean they should. Just because a woman is capable of being raped, doesnt mean a man will or wants to rape her. The fact that force is able to be applied is a moot point in the issue, I can get a gun and force anyone to do what I want, but that doesnt mean I want to do that. If you are having fun being promiscuous, I really cant say that an objective female would find you attractive as a person. And to have sex, with anyone, is to have sex with that person. Plus, if a man is able to have sex with many partners, but not a woman, doesnt that mean that there would have to be a supply of mindless women just to fulfill those men's urges? Thats just not right. Double standards are not allowed. What I am saying here, is that the double standard as such is not right. Not the act of being promiscuous. Tell me what you want me to explain further.

[dondigitalia]

FaSheezy - I don't think anyone was saying that promiscuity is okay for men, but not for women.

I see nothing at all harmful about two consenting adults getting together for sex w/no strings attached, provided they both understand and agree with the "no strings" part. I have my own "friend w/benefits," and don't think either one of us is diminished by the nature of our relationship. Sex is one of the great things in life, and should be enjoyed by everyone. I see no reason those of us who don't want (or don't have room for) a serious relationship should be excluded from the fun.

[argive99]

I'd like to thank everyone who made suggestions and comments. They were thoughtful and helpful. This is an area of my life that I need to do more introspection in. That much is certain.

[argive99]

Sexual involvement for a woman isn't "wrong" but it is very different than it is for a man.

For one thing, it is much more of a commitment.  For a man, sex is a value sought, just like any other.  For a woman, SHE is the value sought.  She's giving her whole self -- body and soul -- to a man. 

Also, she is more vulnerable and less in control.  She needs a sense of trust more than a man does.  As someone who believes in love at first sight (as did Ayn Rand), I know trust can develop rather quickly, but it is always a big deal issue for a woman.

Men are also more easily aroused by perceptual stimuli and their sexual needs are immediate and insistent.  A woman's are more optional and dependent on psychological issues like admiration and trust.  The way I explain this sometimes is that men and women both have a need for sex but, for a man, sex is like food.  He certainly would prefer the finest gourmet meal, but if he can't get it, he's not going to starve.  He'll go for some fast food instead.  For a woman, sex is like art.  She only wants the finest, best expression of her own sense of life.  Otherwise, she's not going out of her way for it.

You know Betsy, I absolutely agree with you here. This is the way I think of the different sexual psychologies of the two genders. I have been told that there is in fact a "double stadard" when it comes to sexual psychology and that its basis lies in evolutionary biology. Now I know that this is hotly contested and I can't vouch for its legitimacy but it does seem to be plausable. Adult female primates have to spend nine months in a gestation period and therefore needed to choose their males according to which ones could provide the most security and resources. Thus, the males (usually the alphas) that were srongest were chosen and the females have become "programmed" (and I use this term very loosely) for pair bonding, maternity, and exclusivity. Thus the traditional sex for resources for women and resources for sex for men. Along with this, I have read that in terms of evolutionary biology, the female becomes "irrelevant" once she reaches the state of menopause and her offspring are raised to maturity.

However, the male maintains his biological relevance so long as he can fight or procreate. For the survival of the species male primates were required to essentially spread their seed in as many females as they could during their lifetimes. This seems to hold for any species where the males are bigger/stronger and the females are weaker/smaller. Its almost like a kind of evolutionary division of labor. Thus, it has been argued that the "programming" for males is thus more "promiscuous" than for females. The justifcation being biological in the context of evolution. Now, as I said, I can't vouch for this. I would love to read the work of an Objectivist evolutionary biologist but I don't know if there is one yet. But of the one's already out there, the above reasoning is very common. In fact, it seems that the religous moral codes that have developed have seemed overwhelmingly preocupied with curtailing this sort of behavior by men by assuming dominion over the realm of marriage and commanding it last "forever".

However, I know that in the context of a rational mind, values should be consciously chosen and not the result of "urges" or these burried impulses that evolutionary biologists say exist. I hope to ultimately end up there.

[dondigitalia]

However, I know that in the context of a rational mind, values should be consciously chosen and not the result of "urges" or these burried impulses that evolutionary biologists say exist.  I hope to ultimately end up there.

I'm right with you here, argive, and I find such impulses to be completely separate from the desire to seek value in ONE particular woman.

Just because a man wants to "sow his wild oats," doesn't mean that he doesn't (one day in the future) also wish to find one woman he values above all others and share his life with her.

[Capitalism Forever]

Don't be so sure - he didn't say he's not interested in Objectivist gals... your gal could be there with him right now!

Seriously, I could care less if our philandering friend's dates are Objectivist or not. I am not interested in "Objectivist gals." I am interested in "the sexiest, loveliest, and most beautiful of all Objectivist gals"--IOW, a girl whom you wouldn't want to have a one night stand with!

(Besides, when I said Objectivist, I meant "someone who shares my outlook on life," and that would definitely not be a one-night-stand kind of girl. So my gal is certainly not "there with him right now" !)

[AwakeAndFree]

Capitalism Forever, there is a very simple way to resolve this question.

Argive99, are you with Cap Forever's "sexiest, loveliest, and most beautiful of all Objectivist gals" right now?

BTW - He couldn't be, because that would be MY girlfriend...

[argive99]

Seriously, I could care less if our philandering friend's dates are Objectivist or not. I am not interested in "Objectivist gals." I am interested in "the sexiest, loveliest, and most beautiful of all Objectivist gals"--IOW, a girl whom you wouldn't want to have a one night stand with!

(Besides, when I said Objectivist, I meant "someone who shares my outlook on life," and that would definitely not be a one-night-stand kind of girl. So my gal is certainly not "there with him right now" !) 

I'm probably going to get lambasted for this too. But speeking of Objectivist "gals", I have been to a number of Objectivist functions/seminars but I have yet to see a really "hot" O'ist. My theory on this is the general mind/body dichotomy which characterizes most of our society. The way it plays out IMO is that truly intelligent, intellectually and morally ambitious women tend (overwhelmingly) not to be all that physically attractive.

When I was in graduate school, you could count the 'babes' on one hand (and of course they all had boyfriends). It seems that when someone (male or female but much more applicable to females) is a 'beautiful' person they get so much automatic attention throughout their entire lives that they feel no need to develop their character or even their personalities. I go by a rule which I would almost ascribe mathematical certainty to: the more physically beautiful the woman, the less developed her character (and honesty) and the more generally worthless she is as a human being (I know I am catching hell for that one).

[Thought I'd add this. It also seems that the more education one has the higher probability one has of being indoctrinated by the left. I have been on dates with at least two beautiful women of 'higher education'. They were both unbelievably leftist; and of course that includes feminist. Even though I was looking for a good time, I couldn't deal with them. Every word I said was cause for objection. Much too much of a headache.]

So, I have not seen really sexy O'ist women to date. Now admittedly, I have not really looked. Would those on this forum generally agree? Or do I need to tear myself away from AdultFriendFinders and start looking at some Objectivist dating sites? (are there any?)

[dondigitalia]

I've noticed the same things, argive, and it's a crying shame.

I don't think you were trying to imply this, but I'll add that it certainly isn't IMPOSSIBLE for a woman to be drop dead gorgeous both inside and out. It just isn't usually the case.

IMO, it makes those who are all the more precious when you find them.

[argive99]

IMO, it makes those who are all the more precious when you find them.

True, and hopefully they wont be spoiled by that fact.

[Betsy]

I'm probably going to get lambasted for this too.    But speeking of Objectivist "gals", I have been to a number of Objectivist functions/seminars but I have yet to see a really "hot" O'ist.

Lambasted, no. Pitied, yes.

They are there, if you go to the right places -- like Objectivist Conferences. Here are some typical Objectivist females from the OCON web site.

Most of these are married, but I have seen some darn pretty singles too.

[Elle]

I go by a rule which I would almost ascribe mathematical certainty to: the more physically beautiful the woman, the less developed her character (and honesty) and the more generally worthless she is as a human being (I know I am catching it for that one).

It's really a shame you think you could "ascribe mathematical certainty" to that.

[argive99]

It's really a shame you think you could "ascribe mathematical certainty" to that.

I said that I would "almost" ascribe mathematical certainty to that proposition. Human beings possess free will and determinism is self-refuting. That being said, there are outrageously beautiful, pschologically healthy, morally sound, sports loving women somewhere out there in the universe. I, however, will not hold my breath.