Is the Objectivist view of sex flawed?

[DonAthos]

This applies to all things outside of sex as well, and is not without exception, but there seems to exist a strong impulse in everyone I’ve known well, to write themselves as the protagonist in their story.

Doesn’t this make some degree of sense? Who ought a person cast as the protagonist in “their story”? Jay Gatsby?

This usually involves some amount of rationalizing, evading, and changing of values.

Those do seem to be things that people do. I may have even seen that a time or two on this board. I don’t know that this charge damns everyone, or every decision that a person makes. (Perhaps sometimes when we choose to take someone to bed, it’s actually a reasonable thing to do, and does not require rationalization, etc.)

So to apply that to this issue, when we choose to take someone to bed, we then try to find reasons to explain to ourselves why it was a good idea.

It can difficult, perhaps, for people who grow up in a society overtly dominated by Judeo-Christian ethics – those who are told from childhood some version of morality which entails sex being evil, or the pursuit of one’s own pleasure and happiness more generally. I can see that answering one’s experience of natural attraction in these cases – attraction to values, and the sexual response that triggers – may lead to feelings of guilt, shame, and concomitant rationalizations.

For those who reject such a creed, the pleasures available through sex make their own compelling argument as to why it can a “good idea to take someone to bed.” Every person, indiscriminately? No. But it is the enjoyment of the experience of sex, in itself, which provides the argument “for,” and I don’t think there needs to be anything more to it than that. I think that seeking pleasure is a fine thing for a person to do. Is there any good reason to despise pleasure?

If we continue this with many people of various character, our standards, which are just rules to specify our desires, become wider and looser. I haven’t seen it play out often(ever actually)that people can just will themselves into higher standards of desire. With enough will power they can certainly change their actions, but what they want, if it ever comes, comes way later.

I’m somewhat reminded of Harold Bloom’s lamentations over Harry Potter:

“Harry Potter” will not lead our children on to Kipling’s “Just So Stories” or his “Jungle Book.” It will not lead them to Thurber’s “Thirteen Clocks” or Kenneth Grahame’s “Wind in the Willows” or Lewis Carroll’s “Alice.”

And if this is the case (though it seems rather unproven, let alone that reading Potter will keep a child from Kipling or etc.), then it must be that there’s no value in reading Harry Potter for its own sake. After all, why should anyone read – or do anything – “for fun”?

[Grames]

“Casual sex” such as I’m discussing does not mean abandoning values, or embracing filth, or anything of that nature. Instead, it is a discussion of embracing those values we find in those we find attractive, though they do not reflect our “highest” values.

In Atlas Shrugged the progression of the love lives of Dagny Taggart and Henry Rearden follows exactly that description. Yet “casual” is hardly the appropriate description of the choices that Dagny and Rearden make.

Behind all of this, there seems to be a kind of “all-or-nothing” character – a letting of “perfection” become the enemy of good or even great. If you want to tell me that sex, at its very height – with the ideal romantic partner, on Valentine’s day in a secluded cabana on a Hawaiian beach, as the sun sets over the Pacific, and etc. – cannot be rivaled, I’ll not argue that point. But the lesson that I do not believe follows is: therefore, everything lesser than that is “improper,” or should be avoided.

Once you have that life as an ongoing state of affairs then willingly giving it up for less is a sacrifice and should be avoided. If you unwillingly lose it (money runs out, partner dies) then accepting a lesser life is not a sacrifice.

Again, I feel like I’m staring into this gigantic Either-Or chasm that leaves out a range of perfectly liveable land in the middle. …

… Does this idea of casual sex being improper have any reality?

What casual sex refers to is not discriminating on value at all (being a prostitute), or discriminating for destructive reasons (the James Taggart and Lillian Rearden scenario.)

Life has a progression to it which applies to all values in general as well as sex in particular. It is not possible to arrive at a destination without traversing the space between the starting point of the journey and its end. Likewise for values, it is not possible to arrive at the point of having highest values without having an array of intermediate values, with “values” here meaning “objects of action” not mere thoughts.

Another way to understand casual sex is that it is the rejection of progress in one’s emotional and spiritual life, a failure to travel by choosing to run in a circle.

I recommend “Ayn Rand’s Conception of Valuing” by Greg Salmieri as a close study of what Ayn Rand is actually referring to with the concept of value, since sex is a particular value and is subsumed within the concept. Some quotes from my notes on that course:

Q: Andrew: Can’t do something if you don’t know how, but also can’t do something if you don’t choose to do it. Is one of these more fundamental than the other?

A: What is relationship between the choice and the knowledge? Answer will emerge over the course of the lectures. There are degrees of this. Choosing a value motivates learning to get it, and then new values are chosen, larger scale values. Choice and knowledge ratchet each other up and life gets bigger in scale and stakes as one gets older.

When do people choose to live? What does that mean?

Imagined mentality of a tiger while getting hungry, hunting and eating, and getting horny, pursuing and mating.

In a way it is true that tigers mate to reproduce, but tigers don’t plan ahead about reproduction or leaving legacies. Tigers don’t even know they can die. Tigers act on range of the moment stimuli to achieve the values that are rigged to enter its life through evolution in its environment.

Humans have to do their own rigging. {Choosing to live is choosing to value, which is choosing a value a particular value}

Children start off not much better than the tiger.

Children integrate short range values into longer range values.

Range of a moment; range of a minute; range of an hour; dealing with distractions; scheduling/dividing time over multiple goals

Theory: big values come from small values integrated together

Choosing life is selecting things and putting them together, endorsing and automating the things chosen as a standard of value. Choosing life at any moment is acting with fidelity to the projected & automatized ideal of your life.

Q: Keith: Regarding ISO {Intrinsic/Subjective/Objective} trichotomy, it seems to be an error that we choose things ex nihilo then go research the means to the end and then value those means.

A: Agree. The basis of any chosen value is already formed values. Infants work off pleasure/pain

[aequalsa]

Doesn’t this make some degree of sense? Who ought a person cast as the protagonist in “their story”? Jay Gatsby?

Hmm..I think I may have chosen my word poorly. Not just protagonist, but really “the good guy.”

It’s a well known sales principle that I have in mind where if you, for example, do something nice for someone, you’ll usually set about finding reasons to justify it. Same with sex. When people begin sleeping with someone they usually immediately start looking for positive characteristics to justify their choice. Sometime later after enough bad experiences and/or enough time for the endorphin rush to slow down, the negative characteristics become more apparent leaving the person wondering, “what did I see in him…?” or some equivalent sense.

[aequalsa]

It can difficult, perhaps, for people who grow up in a society overtly dominated by Judeo-Christian ethics – those who are told from childhood some version of morality which entails sex being evil, or the pursuit of one’s own pleasure and happiness more generally. I can see that answering one’s experience of natural attraction in these cases – attraction to values, and the sexual response that triggers – may lead to feelings of guilt, shame, and concomitant rationalizations.

For those who reject such a creed, the pleasures available through sex make their own compelling argument as to why it can a “good idea to take someone to bed.” Every person, indiscriminately? No. But it is the enjoyment of the experience of sex, in itself, which provides the argument “for,” and I don’t think there needs to be anything more to it than that. I think that seeking pleasure is a fine thing for a person to do. Is there any good reason to despise pleasure?

I’m not thinking of f’ed up christian guilt. That’s a whole other can of worms. I’m saying that when people are indiscriminate sexually, rather than acknowledge their low standards or poor character judgement, they try to eliminate the cognitive dissonance by raising the value of the person they more or less randomly chose through evasion or what have you.

And yes, a very good reason to despise pleasure is when it interferes with more meaningful happiness in the eudaimonia sense. Since the cumulative effects of behavior on your character seems unconvincing, you might try to focus on a more concrete example like heroin and ask if there is any reason that heroin use ought not be persued. Even imagine it in a world where it was made safe with no risk of overdose and decide if there is any reason not to use it often or at all.

[DonAthos]

And yes, a very good reason to despise pleasure is when it interferes with more meaningful happiness in the eudaimonia sense. Since the cumulative effects of behavior on your character seems unconvincing, you might try to focus on a more concrete example like heroin and ask if there is any reason that heroin use ought not be persued. Even imagine it in a world where it was made safe with no risk of overdose and decide if there is any reason not to use it often or at all.

I plan to come back to what else you’ve had to say, and also Grames’ post, but I wanted to respond to this right away.

There is no debate on what you’re saying right here – that we ought despise pleasure when it interferes with more meaningful happiness. But this is the very issue. This is the very thing that needs to be established: that “casual sex” necessarily interferes with more meaningful happiness in the eudaimonia sense.

This is not to say that “casual sex” cannot interfere in this way – surely it can. So can relaxing on the beach, if you do it too long (sunburn) or too often generally, so that it sucks away all of your time and so forth. But we don’t therefore conclude that it’s never proper to relax on the beach, do we?

If I meet a woman and find her attractive – we go out for an evening and have a pleasant time, and then we find ourselves sexually drawn to one another, and have sex – though this might well be a “casual encounter” (i.e. with no deep knowledge of one another; no “romantic love” to speak of; no concrete plans of pursuing a long term relationship), is this necessarily an improper thing to do? Does this interfere with my pursuit of the good life? Or is it an example of my pursuit of the good life? What specific harm would I do to myself in this scenario?

[DonAthos]

In Atlas Shrugged the progression of the love lives of Dagny Taggart and Henry Rearden follows exactly that description. Yet “casual” is hardly the appropriate description of the choices that Dagny and Rearden make.

My use of “casual” reflects this quote, with which we’ve been working:

“Sex is one of the most important aspects of man’s life and, therefore, must never be approached lightly or casually. A sexual relationship is proper only on the ground of the highest values one can find in a human being. Sex must not be anything other than a response to values. And that is why I consider promiscuity immoral. Not because sex is evil, but because sex is too good and too important . . . .”

Through my replies to this thread, I’ve personally highlighted (as I find it especially significant) the phrase: “A sexual relationship is proper only on the ground of the highest values one can find in a human being.” I take it that this stands in contrast to the aforementioned sex “approached lightly or casually”; thus, I’m viewing Rand’s critique of “casual sex” as taking such to mean “sex apart from the highest values one can find in a human being.”

It is problematic that Rand continues to say that “ex must not be anything other than a response to values,” because while I agree with that, I don’t think that these two options (valueless or “highest values”) cover the actual range of possibilities. I believe that one can have “sex apart from the highest values one can find in a human being” (i.e. “casual”), yet still as “a response to values.” I believe that there can be sex on the ground of values found in a human being, though not the highest values. I don’t find that improper, or at least not necessarily so; I think responding sexually to such values can often be quite proper.

If you would contend that Rand implicitly validates what I’m saying through her fiction, then so be it. If you don’t think “casual” is an appropriate label for what I’m describing, I’m not tied to that terminology. But I do disagree that a “sexual relationship is proper only on the ground of the highest values one can find in a human being,” and that idea is the target of my critique.

Though perhaps I’m misunderstanding Rand entirely? What do we suppose she means by “the highest values one can find in a human being”? It certainly seems to suggest something more than this scenario that I’ve provided:

If I meet a woman and find her attractive – we go out for an evening and have a pleasant time, and then we find ourselves sexually drawn to one another, and have sex – though this might well be a “casual encounter” (i.e. with no deep knowledge of one another; no “romantic love” to speak of; no concrete plans of pursuing a long term relationship), is this necessarily an improper thing to do?

Let alone this scenario:

Okay, so unless we’d like to make a claim that a prostitute necessarily represents “the highest values one can find in a human being,” here is the scenario: a man seeks a prostitute for the purpose of a night of physical pleasure – sexual gratification. He finds one that he finds attractive, though he does not know her well enough to know whether she represents “the highest values he can find in a human being.” Let us stipulate that, if they got to know one another over a long enough period of time, they would like each other well enough, but not be inclined to a lifelong romance/partnership; i.e. they share values, but not “the highest values.”

Therefore this sexual relationship is “improper”?

So do I have this completely wrong, then? Do these scenarios reflect Rand’s use of “the highest values one can find in a human being”? Or are they examples of “casual sex”? Are they proper? Improper? Or are they something else entirely?

Once you have that life as an ongoing state of affairs then willingly giving it up for less is a sacrifice and should be avoided. If you unwillingly lose it (money runs out, partner dies) then accepting a lesser life is not a sacrifice.

Nobody wants sacrifice. (Or at least I don’t.)

One should not trade a hundred dollar bill for a five, and one should not trade his ideal romantic partner, in the ideal situation, for something lesser than that. Of course.

But when one’s options are a five dollar bill or nothing, then taking a five dollar bill is not a sacrifice. It is a gain. I think we’re agreed on all of this. But with regards to sex, I would say that having sex with a prostitute, all else being equal, in that it brings physical pleasure and etc., is a bit like receiving a five dollar bill. I would not advocate it in lieu of speeding off to Hawaii with your soulmate (i.e. taking it instead of a hundred dollar bill), but neither would I say that one should not have sex with a prostitute because she does not possess “the highest values one can find in a human being,” any more than I would say that one should turn down a five dollar bill because it is not a hundred.

What casual sex refers to is not discriminating on value at all (being a prostitute), or discriminating for destructive reasons (the James Taggart and Lillian Rearden scenario.)

Okay. Discriminating for destructive reasons is bad, and non-discrimination is equally bad, and if that’s all we’re talking about, there’s no issue whatever.

But I don’t think that this is all that Rand meant by holding sex improper apart from “the ground of the highest values one can find in a human being.” I think she meant more than simple non-discrimination. And while some here have made the (apparent) claim that “sex apart from the ground of the highest values one can find in a human being” is inherently self-destructive, I find no evidence for that.

But yeah, perhaps you and I agree on the substance of these matters, though not on what Rand intended to say, or on the terminology used to express it. I’m open to that possibility.

Come to it, however, on the issue of prostitution, I wonder: is that really “sex without discrimination”? I know that human_murda was claiming in another thread that a prostitute should have no right to refuse clientele… but in reality, don’t they? And aren’t they at the least discriminating on the basis of capacity and willingness to pay for services rendered – isn’t that a value, and the same value upon which most of us agree to engage in trade? If you and I would like to tussle on this matter, perhaps the grounds could be this: is engaging in prostitution necessarily immoral?

Life has a progression to it which applies to all values in general as well as sex in particular. It is not possible to arrive at a destination without traversing the space between the starting point of the journey and its end. Likewise for values, it is not possible to arrive at the point of having highest values without having an array of intermediate values, with “values” here meaning “objects of action” not mere thoughts.

Another way to understand casual sex is that it is the rejection of progress in one’s emotional and spiritual life, a failure to travel by choosing to run in a circle.

I recommend “Ayn Rand’s Conception of Valuing” by Greg Salmieri as a close study of what Ayn Rand is actually referring to with the concept of value, since sex is a particular value and is subsumed within the concept. Some quotes from my notes on that course:

I appreciate the notes and recommendation (though presently there seems to be nothing at the other end of that link), and while I can’t make any immediate promise to investigate that study fully, I’ll continue to give these matters more consideration, and especially the ideas of “value” and one’s “highest values” upon which so much of this discussion turns.

Hmm..I think I may have chosen my word poorly. Not just protagonist, but really “the good guy.”

Fair enough. Though…

I’m not even terribly sure that it’s inappropriate for people to cast themselves as “the good guy” in their lives. Now, let’s be plain: not everyone is a “good guy,” nor do they always act in their own interests. So some would see themselves as “heroic” and be very mistaken in their estimation. And yet, I’d take that over someone who has resigned himself to be mediocre or even villainous.

What’s important for a “good guy,” is that he yet recognizes his own capacity to err, and not assume that, because he does something, that therefore it is the right thing to do (as I believe was your point). But yeah, let’s not discourage people from casting themselves as heroes – let’s hold 'em to it! (Though this may be a tangent…? )

It’s a well known sales principle that I have in mind where if you, for example, do something nice for someone, you’ll usually set about finding reasons to justify it. Same with sex. When people begin sleeping with someone they usually immediately start looking for positive characteristics to justify their choice.

I don’t disagree that this is possible. I’m not saying that people don’t do this. But there’s also the case of someone making an intelligent purchase, or doing something nice for someone fully in accordance with their values, or sleeping with someone in response to the positive characteristics that they do, in fact, possess.

Sometime later after enough bad experiences and/or enough time for the endorphin rush to slow down, the negative characteristics become more apparent leaving the person wondering, “what did I see in him…?” or some equivalent sense.

Yes, perhaps, though I know about this more of a second-hand nature than of my own experiences. I know well what I saw in my former lovers, and I don’t repent of any of my attraction to them, nor the actions I took in response. Not all of those relationships worked out in the long run, and not even all of those sexual experiences were pleasant, but I don’t think I acted in an improper fashion or self-destructively.

It’s like, suppose I’m at a nice-looking restaurant and I order tomato soup, and it comes out… and there’s a fly in it. Well, I’m not happy with my order, and I might not come back to this restaurant again. But did I act improperly or self-destructively when I initially selected this restaurant (if, for all I could tell, it was a good restaurant – “nice-looking”)? In ordering the soup (if there was no fly in the picture on the menu)? Was I wrong to be hungry for it in the first place?

I’m not thinking of f’ed up christian guilt. That’s a whole other can of worms. I’m saying that when people are indiscriminate sexually, rather than acknowledge their low standards or poor character judgement, they try to eliminate the cognitive dissonance by raising the value of the person they more or less randomly chose through evasion or what have you.

I understand, and I don’t think evasion is a good strategy in any situation. Nor do I advocate indiscriminate sexuality, nor do I think that “low standards or poor character judgement” are a good idea. And maybe that’s the whole of what Rand was counselling against, and the whole of “casual sex” (as Grames has suggested)?

But I think there’s more to it than that, an unacknowledged range of sexual choices from where you leave off (“indiscriminate”; “low standards”; “poor character judgement”; “evasion”) up to sex “on the ground of the highest values one can find in a human being.” I think that there are a number of possible such choices on lesser grounds (which is not to say indiscriminate, or “no grounds at all”) that are still value-based, still proper, still moral.

[aequalsa]

But I think there’s more to it than that, an unacknowledged range of sexual choices from where you leave off (“indiscriminate”; “low standards”; “poor character judgement”; “evasion”) up to sex “on the ground of the highest values one can find in a human being.” I think that there are a number of possible such choices on lesser grounds (which is not to say indiscriminate, or “no grounds at all”) that are still value-based, still proper, still moral.

I don’t have time to respond to everything you wrote, but I wanted to say that I agree that there is a range between those two and only use the extremes to show that on one end there is a clear positive and a clear negative on the other. The quote you mention, : “A sexual relationship is proper only on the ground of the highest values one can find in a human being.” I think leaves open a fair amount of flexibility if you pay special attention to the “one can find.” I don’t take that to mean the best possible person one could find in any circumstance in all possibly universes. I see it as choosing the best possible option for an individual in their particular lives. If the individual is a marine on a carrier in the south Pacific for 14 years then maybe a Filipino prostitute is the highest value he can reasonably find. The Stalinesque woman mentioned above might be tolerable, alone on a desert island. ( I kinda picture her as a tall blonde dominatrix with high leather boots )

So that said, the real damage would come from choosing to pursue one of your previous, less ideal relationships over your wife. On the other hand, if your wife wasn’t an option “settling” for your second best choice might not really be settling at all. It could very well be the best thing available to you at that time. And absolutely I believe that people often settle for less good choices than what is reasonably available to them for various reasons…low self-esteem, not being laid in awhile, poor capacity for delayed gratification, or whatever.

[Eiuol]

I did not have sex with that woman!

Looks like Bill Clinton is a better rationalist philosopher than I thought. :twisted: I think dividing things up matters, otherwise it will get into Clintonian semantics at some point.

I’m not really seeing though how you’re answering the idea of when valuation in another person is sufficient. What principle would one use to decide? Your post implies that the person should be really awesome, and it shouldn’t be merely that they just happen to agree to have sex. I’m not quite getting why really awesome isn’t reason enough. To judge someone requires standards in the first place, so it’s not quite true that it’s a matter of them incidentally agreeing. In any case, it’s sill vague what standard you are presenting, other than “be selective”. Your post I think is good for Dormin’s objections, but DonAthos and I mostly want to get at is: what amount of selectivity should there be at a minimum?

Obnoxious Barbra and compost-pile Jane are fine, stark examples (well, you might be a little too Jane here, unless she never showers!), but it’s worth being more nuanced. Let’s say Sandy is the previously mentioned awesome person. She may have romantic potential, but you’re not quite sure yet for various reasons. It may very well be true that there is no potential as well, but she still meets a variety of important standards, and she is not in any romantic relationship with anyone (minimizing complicating factors here). So, you decide to ask her if she’d have sex with you, knowing full well there might not be a romantic relationship later, and not using sex to manipulate her into a relationship. You would like the sexual experience, and in some sense, you’re looking for anyone to agree, provided they meet the important standards of brains and physical appeal. Sandy says yes, fun times ensue. Would this example be a case of when sex is the wrong option? I’m inclined to say it’s a morally good option, especially based on the ideas of that Aristotle quote. For the sake of understanding sex, your own preferences, and your own romantic standards, you in fact *should* have sex with Sandy. I’m not sure how your line of reasoning would deal with this.

I like the “positive experience points” bit, it’s a useful analogy for many things, actually. Plus it involves that fourth axiom that you know well, that everything is reducible to Pokemon. This sounds silly, but the RPG analogy works well. I imagine the lower quality levels of sex to be like the beginning areas of the game, where all the monsters are easy and provide very few experience points. You can stay there a while, but it’s really quite boring and uninteresting. You’d have more fun if you skipped ahead to the more difficult areas. The whole game becomes boring and uninteresting if you keep it up in the same area until level 100, making the whole game really bland overall. Attack -> Victory, over and over. Nothing else. You’ll get ability points for techniques each battle, though. But using Super Powerful Undodgeable Sexytime Blast on a pigeon isn’t needed, even if it’s really cool to see that hit point bar reach zero in a millisecond. You go through the motions without a thought, all are just as good. So, going to the area with powerful monsters is a better option. You have to be careful about which monsters to fight, only because not all are just as good or useful. Those stupid pigeons keep appearing, and you don’t want them! You don’t care about those pigeons even if they give experience, so you hit run instead. The dragons are better, even though dragons and pigeons give similar amounts of ability points. By pursuing the better encounters, the game is much more enjoyable. And with the dragon encounters, you rack up a lot more experience points faster than with the pigeon encounters. Cranking up the rate in which you pursue pigeons could produce the same amount of positive experience points per hour, but to do that, you will have to forgo dragons entirely and never step foot outside the less interesting/meaningful area. If the analogy applies to sex, it would mean that spending time on sexual encounters (and pursuing them) is simply not worth the time, and hinders pursuing the best kinds of sexual encounters. Meaningless encounters (say if the person is dumb as bricks with an irritating personality) really diminish the value of sex if pursued habitually.

Lest my own analogy is used to respond to my own questions, my questions pertain to particular choices, not habit. Sandy is not one of those dragons, but she’s certainly not an annoying pigeon.

I wanted to address some of DonAthos’ posts, but one novel-length post is enough to deal with. x.x

[Dante]

I would tend to agree with this, but I haven’t seen these things to be unconnected enough to allow it. The decisions early on, form the habits, and the habits form the character.

I agree with your ideas about habit formation, and certainly people use this reasoning as a rationalization for a self-destructive lifestyle. However, there is a place for getting some real-world experience of “what is out there,” what a real sexual relationship is like to be in, what is actually important to you in such a relationship, etc before you go straight for the deepest human connection you can imagine, with someone who shares all your highest values. Any line of reasoning can be abused, of course, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t valid.

[Grames]

scenarios,

If I meet a woman and find her attractive – we go out for an evening and have a pleasant time, and then we find ourselves sexually drawn to one another, and have sex – though this might well be a “casual encounter” (i.e. with no deep knowledge of one another; no “romantic love” to speak of; no concrete plans of pursuing a long term relationship), is this necessarily an improper thing to do?

Okay, so unless we’d like to make a claim that a prostitute necessarily represents “the highest values one can find in a human being,” here is the scenario: a man seeks a prostitute for the purpose of a night of physical pleasure – sexual gratification. He finds one that he finds attractive, though he does not know her well enough to know whether she represents “the highest values he can find in a human being.” Let us stipulate that, if they got to know one another over a long enough period of time, they would like each other well enough, but not be inclined to a lifelong romance/partnership; i.e. they share values, but not “the highest values.”

Therefore this sexual relationship is “improper”?

If you are already in possession of a relationship with a high-value partner, for example a good marriage, then yes those are improper relationships. If not, then they are not necessarily improper but still might be for other reasons (such as forming habits, touched on by other posters).

Okay. Discriminating for destructive reasons is bad, and non-discrimination is equally bad, and if that’s all we’re talking about, there’s no issue whatever.

But I don’t think that this is all that Rand meant by holding sex improper apart from “the ground of the highest values one can find in a human being.” I think she meant more than simple non-discrimination.

I agree. I don’t think she would find moral sex in exchange for a five dollar bill even if a five dollar bill was the highest value one could find in a human being. There is some kind of minimum threshold involved.

Come to it, however, on the issue of prostitution, I wonder: is that really “sex without discrimination”? I know that human_murda was claiming in another thread that a prostitute should have no right to refuse clientele… but in reality, don’t they? And aren’t they at the least discriminating on the basis of capacity and willingness to pay for services rendered – isn’t that a value, and the same value upon which most of us agree to engage in trade? If you and I would like to tussle on this matter, perhaps the grounds could be this: is engaging in prostitution necessarily immoral?

Of course prostitutes discriminate, but over superficial traits. There is no justice in what they do, just calculating and arms-length trading.

To choose to be a prostitute when alternatives exist is necessarily immoral. I can’t imagine anyone interviewing prostitutes to determine which ones are immoral and which are not before picking one, so they should just be avoided as a class.

(though presently there seems to be nothing at the other end of that link)

That probably has something to do with their switching to downloadable products. My guess is the link or at least the product will be back at some point. The handout is still available, as are my notes (the Salmieri link in my signature).

[DonAthos]

I don’t have time to respond to everything you wrote…

Yeah, sorry 'bout that. But verbosity is a virtue… right?

…right…?

…but I wanted to say that I agree that there is a range between those two and only use the extremes to show that on one end there is a clear positive and a clear negative on the other. The quote you mention, : “A sexual relationship is proper only on the ground of the highest values one can find in a human being.” I think leaves open a fair amount of flexibility if you pay special attention to the “one can find.” I don’t take that to mean the best possible person one could find in any circumstance in all possibly universes. I see it as choosing the best possible option for an individual in their particular lives.

I agree that there’s “flexibility” in the phrase, which leaves some room for mistakes in interpretation. And I’m open to the idea that my interpretation is mistaken.

So, to clear up this “flexibility,” I wonder: when we’re looking to apply this wisdom to our lives, what is supposed to be the process? Let’s say that I’ve spent an evening with a female friend, and I find her attractive – she is good-looking, I like her, I find her sexually stimulating. And she comes on to me.

I “react” on a physical/emotional level, and I have a desire to reciprocate and have sex (whence “attractive”), but should I take action? Would it be “proper” of me? To make this “simple,” we’re both unattached, free of disease, and have nothing to fear of pregnancy. The only moral question before us is whether to indulge ourselves in this mutual act of pleasure, on the basis of our mutual attraction.

However. Suppose that she is not the best possible person in any circumstance in all possible universes? If I read you right, that should not be a problem. What if she’s not even the best woman that I know? Well, that might not be an issue either – suppose that the “best woman I know” is someone otherwise unavailable to me (perhaps she lives in Japan; perhaps she’s married to my friend; or etc.)…? What if it’s unclear to me whether she’s the best woman that I know? Suppose that she has some virtues… but lacks in other areas, whereas other women have other virtues, but also lack in key areas? Suppose that she’s *not* the best woman I know, and other, better women are technically “available,” but due to personal histories and etc., they’re not so available to me without some large endeavor/expenditure which might constitute a total sacrifice to pursue? (And certainly not available to me in the proximate time.)

So again, as I’m sitting there and she’s attempting a seduction, how do I decide whether this is a proper or an improper thing to do? And, again, if I were to say to myself, “well, I’m not quite sure whether she has the ‘highest values one/I can find in a human being’… but I like her, she likes me, and this is apt to be pleasant,” and go for it, what self-destruction am I courting if she does not have those “highest values,” whatever that actually means? – what is the precise nature of this self-destruction? Because I contend that if there is no self-destruction rearing its head that we can point to, then there is nothing “improper” about pursuing sex in this scenario, either.

If the individual is a marine on a carrier in the south Pacific for 14 years then maybe a Filipino prostitute is the highest value he can reasonably find. The Stalinesque woman mentioned above might be tolerable, alone on a desert island. ( I kinda picture her as a tall blonde dominatrix with high leather boots )

Okay, so I like the visual of the dominatrix, but (and I don’t mean to be confounding, really I don’t), I don’t know that I agree that Supermodel Stalin would be tolerable as a partner, even on a desert island. You see, I think that Nicky was right about that: being Stalin is such a turn-off, that I don’t think that even being “the best available option” would ever make sleeping with her tolerable (providing one understands her nature as Stalin).

I question whether sex is necessarily permitted with the “best available option,” regardless of what that option entails, and indeed, I don’t think so. I think that the question of the morality of sex with someone – anyone – can only be resolved with recourse to whether that particular act will be beneficial to you, to your life, or self-destructive. Spending time with Stalin, being intimate with Stalin, that can only be self-destructive in my mind. And who would want to provide Stalin pleasure, even incidentally? Or receive their pleasure at Stalin’s hands? It’s pretty gross. And even on a desert island, I’d have to imagine that what I’d have to endure to achieve whatever physical pleasure we’re talking about would be a net loss, and probably not even pleasurable; “improper.” (And my God, in the name of your life, would you let a dominatrix Stalin tie you up? Can Stalin be trusted to respect “safe words”? )

But what of the cases of all those women that are attractive, and reflect values, but are not necessarily reflective of “highest values”? In terms of experience, pleasure, etc., I read sex with such women as simply a positive thing, and not to be prejudged “improper.”

So that said, the real damage would come from choosing to pursue one of your previous, less ideal relationships over your wife. On the other hand, if your wife wasn’t an option “settling” for your second best choice might not really be settling at all. It could very well be the best thing available to you at that time. And absolutely I believe that people often settle for less good choices than what is reasonably available to them for various reasons…low self-esteem, not being laid in awhile, poor capacity for delayed gratification, or whatever.

We should strive to have the best possible lives, and not sacrifice greater values for lesser ones, or sacrifice ideal relationships for those less ideal. We should not “settle,” but always seek the best for ourselves. Agreed on all counts. But whether the “best thing available to you” (which sounds right to me, but might entail not sleeping with Supermodel Stalin) necessarily means that only those sexual relationships “on the ground of the highest values one can find in a human being” are proper…? I remain unsure (and dubious).

[DonAthos]

If you are already in possession of a relationship with a high-value partner, for example a good marriage, then yes those are improper relationships. If not, then they are not necessarily improper but still might be for other reasons (such as forming habits, touched on by other posters).

If we introduce other elements that result in destruction, then yes, we have an improper situation. Casual sex in a burning building is immoral… but I think that says more about hanging out in a burning building than it does about casual sex. And forming habits which interfere in one’s pursuit of the good life are bad, and so is any kind of betrayal of one’s high-value partner(s).

But if we’re agreed that the scenarios I’ve described are not necessarily improper, as stated and of themselves, then I think we’re agreed.

I agree. I don’t think she would find moral sex in exchange for a five dollar bill even if a five dollar bill was the highest value one could find in a human being. There is some kind of minimum threshold involved.

Here’s what I know: five dollars more than what you had is a net gain. But if there’s a “minimum threshold” of value one must expect to receive in order to justify sex, as you suggest, I wouldn’t know how to begin to calculate it. Perhaps the experience of sexual attraction/one’s body priming itself for intercourse is one such method of calculation?

Of course prostitutes discriminate, but over superficial traits. There is no justice in what they do, just calculating and arms-length trading.

This is probably dense of me, and I apologize, but I really don’t understand what you mean here.

To choose to be a prostitute when alternatives exist is necessarily immoral.

Ah! This is exciting – such a clearly stated point of view, and it hints that it might get at some of the underlying issues for this whole topic.

So I guess I’ll push. Why is it necessarily immoral to be a prostitute (when alternatives exist)?

I can’t imagine anyone interviewing prostitutes to determine which ones are immoral and which are not before picking one, so they should just be avoided as a class.

Hmm… I’m no expert on this, but I think that there is often a kind of screening process by which johns discriminate from among a pool of prostitutes, whether that’s just a review of the street, or in a madame’s den, or etc. (Actually, I’m pretty sure that there are online resources now, too.) That’s not necessarily going to do much to get at one’s deepest character, but then neither necessarily does meeting a woman through any conventional means. In looking for that prostitute that they find most attractive, and insofar as we are attracted to what we value, I guess that’s a way for a moral man to seek out morality in his would-be partner.

Of course, if you believe that prostitutes are immoral by default (assuming that “alternatives exist,” but outside of being forced into sexual slavery, I’m not sure what else we might be talking about), then I guess we’d be justified in just consigning the whole lot of them to immorality without any “interview.” So that really seems to me to be the most salient question at the moment. Why is it immoral to choose to be a prostitute?

[bluecherry]

I’m not really seeing though how you’re answering the idea of when valuation in another person is sufficient. What principle would one use to decide? Your post implies that the person should be really awesome, and it shouldn’t be merely that they just happen to agree to have sex. I’m not quite getting why really awesome isn’t reason enough. To judge someone requires standards in the first place, so it’s not quite true that it’s a matter of them incidentally agreeing. In any case, it’s sill vague what standard you are presenting, other than “be selective”. Your post I think is good for Dormin’s objections, but DonAthos and I mostly want to get at is: what amount of selectivity should there be at a minimum?

. . .

. . . But using Super Powerful Undodgeable Sexytime Blast on a pigeon isn’t needed, even if it’s really cool to see that hit point bar reach zero in a millisecond. . . .

1. I stuck to far ends of the spectrum just to make it really obvious that there is more than one possible type here. I wanted to make that clear here first before things possibly got into arguments over things like, “But where does green end and blue start? Is it here? Or here? Or here? Can you say at all? So is there really any blue at all? Is it all green?” Somebody else mentioned the part about “that one can find” being important and that taking less gets into sacrificing and this I pretty much agree with. I would say though that if what you can find doesn’t reach at least some minimum then it just isn’t worth it at all still anyway. Now, exactly where that bar belongs for separating enough from too little even when it is the best one can find, that I think has room for some argument and/or variation between people, but there are definite points of enough and not enough somewhere even if the exact edges are a bit hazy. It’s a bit like the question of what the proper dividing line is between child and adult - there are kids and there are adults without a doubt, just coming up with exactly where the dividing line is isn’t so simple and obvious. I’ve mentioned before though elsewhere that if you know almost nothing about somebody or if you have a little that looks promising but don’t know enough yet to say with confidence about if somebody may make the cut for “good enough” by the above mentioned standards then going ahead anyway is a pretty lame attempt to cheat the system. There’s no emergency that would force one to have sex without getting to know a potential partner first so doing so just seems like an attempt to keep an excuse available for later, “Oh? So he/she is actually thoroughly rotten? Well, I didn’t know that at the time so it can’t say anything about me.”

2. lololol

[Nicky]

It is enjoyable. It feels really good.

By “mutual masturbation,” I mean rather than two individuals only choosing between passionate romantic sex and solo masturbation, they can instead have sex with each other purely for physical pleasure.

This sex does involve values, and to a lesser degree feelings (as they pertain to a relationship), but this sex does not include the “highest values.”

It comes from two individuals seeking pleasure.

Pleasure is achieved by it.

That is a hedonist’s justification. This is true in this case, as it is in general: If we choose hedonism, we choose it at the expense of our values. I’ll explain how it is true in this case, I’ll leave justifying the more general statement for another time:

The inter-connectedness of values and sexual desires isn’t a choice. It is a fact of nature. If we treat sex as if it stands in a vacuum, and have sex with no concern for our highest values, that is a costly mistake. Those values will be corrupted by that choice.

By getting into the habit of having “mutual masturbation”, we sacrifice something of greater value: the enjoyment of real sex. This insight has to come with experience, I guess, but the fact is we can’t enjoy both at the same time. A man for instance can’t be wildly attracted to both superficial, promiscuous partners he has no regard for, and the woman he loves (assuming that the woman he loves is not superficial and promiscuous, of course). That is not how human sexuality works. It has to be one or the other.

[DonAthos]

That is a hedonist’s justification.

This is not true. Hedonists are not the only ones who seek pleasure, and to do something for the sake of experiencing the pleasure that it provides is not hedonism.

Hedonists hold pleasure as their standard of value whereas Objectivists hold life as their standard of value. So it would be fundamentally hedonist to advocate seeking pleasure in a manner that is destructive to one’s long term life, for the sake of that pleasure. But advocating pleasure as such, whether it has been shown to be destructive or not, is not hedonism. Objectivism is not (thank goodness) pleasure averse.

If you can establish that a certain instance or category of sex is destructive to one’s long term life, then you have shown it to be improper per Objectivism. But not apart from that.

This is true in this case, as it is in general: If we choose hedonism, we choose it at the expense of our values.

This is putting the cart before the horse. Rather, if we choose pleasure at the expense of our values (that is, our “Objectivist values,” which are derived from life), then we are hedonist. But again, there is nothing wrong with pursuing pleasure, as such. Do you dislike pleasure?

And if you say, “well, I dislike pleasure when it destroys one’s higher values” – we all do. But that’s the precise thing that must be demonstrated to make your case, and it can’t be either assumed or asserted, which is what you’re doing when you pronounce Dormin’s argument “hedonism” – you’re begging the question.

The inter-connectedness of values and sexual desires isn’t a choice. It is a fact of nature. If we treat sex as if it stands in a vacuum, and have sex with no concern for our highest values, that is a costly mistake.

Ah, but do you see what you’ve done right here?

Sentences 1 & 2: “The inter-connectedness of values and sexual desires isn’t a choice. It is a fact of nature.”

I don’t know that anyone is arguing against the “inter-connectedness of values and sexual desires.” But let’s see where you go with it…

Sentence 3: “If we treat sex as if it stands in a vacuum, and have sex with no concern for our highest values, that is a costly mistake.”

Hey! Where’d you get that word “highest” from??

See? That’s the very issue. Sex predicated on “value”? Check. But whence “highest value”? And what precisely is meant by it?

By getting into the habit of having “mutual masturbation”, we sacrifice something of greater value: the enjoyment of real sex. This insight has to come with experience, I guess, but the fact is we can’t enjoy both at the same time. A man for instance can’t be wildly attracted to both superficial, promiscuous partners he has no regard for, and the woman he loves (assuming that the woman he loves is not superficial and promiscuous, of course). That is not how human sexuality works. It has to be one or the other.

There’s talk here of “habits,” but I don’t know that you’ve established how or why we’re talking about a “habit.” (Suppose each instance of “mutual masturbation” is, instead, justified on its own merits?) And also of “real sex”; is that different from “sexual intercourse”?

If a man can’t be “wildly attracted to both superficial, promiscuous partners he has no regard for, and the woman he loves,” can he be attracted to multiple partners he has some level of justifiable regard for?

[aequalsa]

If you can establish that a certain instance or category of sex is destructive to one’s long term life, then you have shown it to be improper per Objectivism. But not apart from that.

This seems to be your main argument, that absent harm, there is no reason to not engage in an activity, especially a pleasurable one?

Like sex. Sex feels good because it washes our bodies in neurotransmitters. That’s the good. The great in fact. So great that it’s one of the best sorts of tools we have to reward ourselves. This euphoria isn’t just a feeling in a vacuum though. The feeling gets associated with many things going on right then, not the least of which is the partner you chose. So letting trashy whores make you feel really good will form a positive association with trashy whores. Letting uptight angry women that remind you of your mother make you feel good will form positive associations with uptight angry women. Letting guys who always cheat on you and treat you like a punching bag make you feel good will form a positive association with guys who cheat on you and use you as a punching bag.

I would guess that less than 10% or less of the decisions we make on any given day are conscious choices. We habituate everything and grow fond of the things we habituate to. Because of that, as a general rule I jealously guard the things that I let affect me. I think it’s easy to fall for the idea that we have this sort of ultimate freewill wherein we will make choices completely independent of our previous experiences. We can make choices in that way, but we(myself included) usually don’t, so the only way I have ever succeeded in consistently controlling my wants is by stepping outside of that paradigm. If I want to eat fewer potato chips, I don’t buy them because then I only have to say no once. If I don’t want to be influenced in the direction of someone’s character, I limit my interactions with them and avoid friendship altogether. If I don’t want to cause myself to be attracted to a certain type of woman, I don’t have sex with her.

So there is no definite harm in being indiscriminate, but choosing with less discrimination means, necessarily, that you’re trusting the fate of your life and the content of your character largely to chance. Sometimes it will work well, sometimes it won’t and usually it will be somewhere in between. To me it’s the difference between speculation and investment in the game of life. I rarely gamble and only then when I’m ready to give up what I’m betting.

[DonAthos]

This seems to be your main argument, that absent harm, there is no reason to not engage in an activity, especially a pleasurable one?

I think that this is reflective of the actual calculation, yes. I would say that “pleasure” is by-and-large an argument “for” something, whereas harm (meaning: self-destruction; working against one’s higher values, one’s life) is an argument against it (rather, it is the argument against it).

Laying out on the beach is a pleasurable activity. It is not pleasurable (or good) if one does it for too long – he’ll get a sunburn. Too much time spent laying out on the beach will destroy one’s productivity. That’s not good either. And eventually, one might get skin cancer. All of these are to be avoided, in consideration of life as the standard of value.

However, none of this is to say that “laying out on the beach is necessarily bad” or “improper” or “should be avoided.” Laying out on the beach, for the purpose of enjoying one’s self, is perfectly proper, so long as it takes place within the context of life as the standard of value, meaning: one avoids sunburns, continues to be productive, and wards off skin cancer. But we would not say of someone headed to the beach with his towel, looking to enjoy himself, that he is necessarily a “hedonist” or “immoral” or any such thing. Rather, I would encourage people to enjoy themselves as much as possible (given all of the preceding context). Isn’t that why we care so much? It’s not to extend life for its own sake, but because life is enjoyable. Feeling the sunshine on your skin is nice, is good.

Like sex. Sex feels good because it washes our bodies in neurotransmitters. That’s the good. The great in fact. So great that it’s one of the best sorts of tools we have to reward ourselves.

Just to note, I agree that this is some of the good of the experience of sex, but not necessarily all of the good.

This euphoria isn’t just a feeling in a vacuum though. The feeling gets associated with many things going on right then, not the least of which is the partner you chose.

Here I want to slow down. When you say that “[t]he feeling gets associated,” it gets associated by whom? If the contention is that a person who experiences this good feeling of sex is unable to properly evaluate/assess his partner thereafter, I cannot agree.

So letting trashy whores make you feel really good will form a positive association with trashy whores.

Well… not to say too much in the defense of “trashy whores” (couldn’t we be talking about the “hooker with a heart of gold” instead? ), but insofar as you form that “positive association,” which here means regarding this trashy whore (or several) as being capable of providing the physical experience you’ve enjoyed, isn’t that simply a recognition of reality? Isn’t that"positive association" something like an application of justice?

But again, if you’re saying that the experience of sex makes one incapable of recognizing a trashy whore for what she is, or making proper judgements thereupon, I disagree.

Letting uptight angry women that remind you of your mother make you feel good will form positive associations with uptight angry women. Letting guys who always cheat on you and treat you like a punching bag make you feel good will form a positive association with guys who cheat on you and use you as a punching bag.

I think that the key here is for a person to recognize that, though this guy that uses me as a punching bag is good in the sack, my relationship with him overall is detrimental to my life. At that point, it would be prudent and moral to end the relationship. Sex in that context is bad.

But all of these scenarios rely upon some extraneous “poison” element added to make the sex seem “improper.” Remember, this entire conversation is based on the context of “casual sex” – not “sex with awful people.” And as for what I mean by “casual sex” – sex apart from one’s “highest values” – I’ve given a number of examples throughout. So, suppose instead of guys who cheat and beat on you, here’s another one: consider the attractive business woman that you meet in the airport lounge one night, and you click. Following a light, informal-but-flirty conversation where you discover several things in common (though not necessarily everything, and the conversation does not probe very deeply), you have a night of mutually enjoyable sex… though you never intend on seeing her again, given that you will be on opposite sides of the planet pursuing separate lives and interests. That’s casual sex. If it happens to you enough, people will call you “promiscuous.” It’s not necessarily about your “highest values.” But I’d contend that it’s proper, moral, good.

If we want to make sex in this scenario bad, sure we could: we could give me a wife, whose trust I’m destroying in the process. We could give the business woman AIDS. We could stipulate that the building in which we’re having sex is on fire, and the sex is distracting us from the smoke and screams. We could make her a hidden monster, either of the metaphorical Kantian variety, or, hell, she could be an actual extraterrestrial, come to scope out earth for eventual conquest.

But if we want to say that casual sex is bad, of itself, then this scenario of casual sex – with no hidden extras – ought to be enough to demonstrate the damage. So that’s my challenge: If I “form a positive association” with such apparently attractive women and seemingly positive encounters, how precisely do I imperil myself? By what actual means does this particular scenario of causal sex hurt my life? ETA: If there are no demonstrable means by which this scenario necessarily hurts my life, then isn’t the point made? Casual sex – sex apart from one’s “highest values” – is not necessarily improper, and the critique of Rand’s expressed opinion is warranted and accurate.

I would guess that less than 10% or less of the decisions we make on any given day are conscious choices. We habituate everything and grow fond of the things we habituate to. Because of that, as a general rule I jealously guard the things that I let affect me. I think it’s easy to fall for the idea that we have this sort of ultimate freewill wherein we will make choices completely independent of our previous experiences. We can make choices in that way, but we(myself included) usually don’t, so the only way I have ever succeeded in consistently controlling my wants is by stepping outside of that paradigm.

I think that one way we can address the kind of unconscious, habitual behavior you’re referring to, is through conversations like these, where we try to understand the specific nature of certain activities. So, even though I enjoy occasional trips to the beach, I’m not really concerned that I’ll wind up addicted to it, unthinkingly going out every day until I’m leathery and on life support. I’ve already given it the necessary thought to understand that doing it once in a while is acceptable, doing it all the time is not, for specific reasons (and I can self-correct, if I’ve been on “autopilot” for too long, and anything strikes me as out of place; like my wife starts to mention that I’ve been spending an awful lot of time at the beach lately).

If I want to eat fewer potato chips, I don’t buy them because then I only have to say no once.

I understand this kind of approach as a response to certain contexts… like an alcoholic in recovery, I think, is justified in staying away from liquor altogether. But in my life, I trust myself to have potato chips on occasion without turning into Jabba the Hutt. Different personalities, I think, need different strategies to employ this kind of self-control.

If I don’t want to be influenced in the direction of someone’s character, I limit my interactions with them and avoid friendship altogether. If I don’t want to cause myself to be attracted to a certain type of woman, I don’t have sex with her.

If there was a morally repugnant woman, I wouldn’t want to spend any time with her at all, not for the pleasure of sex, not for a hand of poker, not for “anything” (though even there, there are some interesting contexts that life can throw at you). But this idea of fearing attraction? I wouldn’t have sex with a morally repugnant woman because the notion of repugnance, in itself, conveys the opposite of “attraction.”

We can unpack this much, much more, because I think that there’s a lot of information buried in these ideas… but I’ll start here: I think that “attraction” by-and-large precedes “sex.” So I don’t know that we should avoid sex, so as to not cause ourselves to be attracted to certain people, but rather we should have sex on the basis of our (rational) attractions.

So there is no definite harm in being indiscriminate, but choosing with less discrimination means, necessarily, that you’re trusting the fate of your life and the content of your character largely to chance.

But this isn’t at all the matter!

Every! single! time! It’s always either “highest values” or “indiscriminate”! LOL But we’re not talking about whether it’s moral to have sex indiscriminately, anymore than I would counsel sunbathing indiscriminately. Rather, I’m saying do sunbathe for pleasure, but do not sunbathe in such a manner to cause yourself harm; do not give yourself cancer – that is very discriminatory.

As regards sex, do have sex for pleasure, and in response to virtue, but do not have sex in such a manner to cause yourself harm (like with an abusive boyfriend). The issue with Rand began, and remains, in conflict with this idea of sex being “proper only on the ground of the highest values one can find in a human being.” To argue that “highest values” are not requisite is not to argue for indiscriminatory sex. It’s not to argue for sex “as a gamble.” It is, instead, to argue that sex on the ground of values, though not “the highest one can find,” can still be itself a value; can be done without self-harm/destruction and in accordance with life as the standard of value; can be proper.

[aequalsa]

It’s not to extend life for its own sake, but because life is enjoyable. Feeling the sunshine on your skin is nice, is good.

I may disagree with this depending on what you mean by enjoyable. I assume the broadest of meaning but would clarify that I don’t view a lack of enjoyment in the physical sense or even serious discomfort as an inhibition to the achievement of happiness in a more long term sense and that more often than not, discomfort is a part of the package for serious achievement and the more meaningful kinds of satisfaction.

Just to note, I agree that this is some of the good of the experience of sex, but not necessarily all of the good.

Sure, but the amount of the other good that exists has to be related to your perception of your partners quality, right?

Here I want to slow down. When you say that “[t]he feeling gets associated,” it gets associated by whom? If the contention is that a person who experiences this good feeling of sex is unable to properly evaluate/assess his partner thereafter, I cannot agree.

This is probably the fundamental difference separating our respective opinions. (And to be fair, I should note that it is where I seem to part company with many Objectivists…so you are in good company, not me) I believe in free will but it’s a pretty delimited version compared to what I have seen in the Objectivist community. So…“gets associated” by the person having the experience. And to be sure, they could consider it and look for causation and affect on their psyche, but it’s not usually enough and only consistently applied for issues that are more directly harmful. Even in those circumstances I don’t see rational consideration of psychological issues as adequate in any sense for the resolution of those issues. As an example, I have a friend who grew up with an emotionally abrasive, demanding father and an enabling kind mother who subsequently gets walked over. This example caused her to learn that being emotionally abrasive and demanding in relationships is a far better strategy to get what she wants. Even with the conscious realization of the incorrectness of her approach through therapy, she still cannot will herself into correct behavior. The experiences are far too internalized to allow for an about face. I see it the same with any enduring habit. Smoking, meaningless sex, nail biting, or whatever. Ultimately in your control? Sure. With enough effort and appropriate strategies one can change quite a bit. But stop the effects of the habit from forming through will alone or by conscious consideration? Not in my experience. I think that your experiences affect and change you whether you want them to or not and to change them in another way requires a good deal of work.

Well… not to say too much in the defense of “trashy whores” (couldn’t we be talking about the “hooker with a heart of gold” instead? ),

Sure, if you have actually met any.

but insofar as you form that “positive association,” which here means regarding this trashy whore (or several) as being capable of providing the physical experience you’ve enjoyed, isn’t that simply a recognition of reality? Isn’t that"positive association" something like an application of justice?

I suppose, if it was limited to that. I just don’t believe that it can be without a mind/body dichotomy.

But again, if you’re saying that the experience of sex makes one incapable of recognizing a trashy whore for what she is, or making proper judgements thereupon, I disagree.

I’ve just seen it that way. Otherwise rational guys with a Quixotic tendency. "I slept with her so she’s definitely not a whore, she’s a princess. "

But all of these scenarios rely upon some extraneous “poison” element added to make the sex seem “improper.”

…

But if we want to say that casual sex is bad, of itself, then this scenario of casual sex – with no hidden extras – ought to be enough to demonstrate the damage. So that’s my challenge: If I “form a positive association” with such apparently attractive women and seemingly positive encounters, how precisely do I imperil myself? By what actual means does this particular scenario of causal sex hurt my life?

This is mostly covered in what I wrote above, but at the risk of verbosity, it depends on where you are at. For some, casual sex might be a step up. I know a gal who after several relationships with dishonest men see’s short term sex buddies as far preferable. For her, it probably is. Not the best of all possible worlds, and probably not even the best she could do with a better philosophy, but probably the best she can hope for with where she’s at.

So take two identical twins, Christy and Misty. At 15 Chisty, the more social of the two gets invited to a party. She get’s a little too drunk and wakes up to find she lost her virginity to Blake. She never would have chosen him but you know how those things are. Feeling the blow to her self esteem, she finally agrees to start going out with Nathan, a dopey pothead that’s been hitting on her for the better part of the year. After a couple months of mediocre sex and lounging about in his parents basement, they break up and she moves on to a string of other so so relationships ending in an accidental pregnancy with Eddie who has a good deal of trouble holding down a job for more than a few months. Misty meanwhile has an enduring friendship with Wesley, her slightly geeky but fairly brilliant lab partner. By their senior year they move into a relationship and consciously choose to be each others first. It lasts through their second year of college but ultimately fails from the long distance between them and minor differences. She eventually moves on with a secure sense of what she’s looking for, finding Peter, who has a lot in common with Wesley but is a good deal more masculine and mature and close. They get married and live happily ever after.

So who has the better concept of sex? Who has better sex? After Christy’s previous experiences, how much would you bet on her changing her expectations and desires? Is she more or less likely to find her “Peter?” For me, the answers are obvious. Like the “prostitute with a heart of gold,” the girl who changes her ways and finds true love is more a part of Hollywood than real life. In real life, a heart of gold doesn’t land you in the sex trade world and when it does, you don’t keep your heart of gold. They are both in between versions but spread out enough to draw a reasonable conclusion about which side one ought to aim for.

.

but I’ll start here: I think that “attraction” by-and-large precedes “sex.” So I don’t know that we should avoid sex, so as to not cause ourselves to be attracted to certain people, but rather we should have sex on the basis of our (rational) attractions.

I see it as reciprocal.

But this isn’t at all the matter!

Every! single! time! It’s always either “highest values” or “indiscriminate”!

I tried to be more centrist in my example above. Casual sex implies not discriminating much, to me. I suppose you could descriminate a bit. On looks, or sense of humor, or that sort of thing. But directionally speaking, the extent to which you discriminate is the extent to which you’re not leaving your choice to chance.

As regards sex, do have sex for pleasure, and in response to virtue, but do not have sex in such a manner to cause yourself harm

Right, but again, deciding that is based on discrimination. Not approaching it casually. You don’t get to pick ahead of time whether to have an abusive boyfriend when your approach to choosing a guy is similar to a crap shoot.

… can be done without self-harm/destruction and in accordance with life as the standard of value; can be proper.

Bare minimum, I would say there is an opportunity cost which is hard to measure and in worst cases, the abusive boyfriend who seemed nice at first before he sold you into the sex trade business.

[Nicky]

This is not true. Hedonists are not the only ones who seek pleasure, and to do something for the sake of experiencing the pleasure that it provides is not hedonism.

Hedonists hold pleasure as their standard of value whereas Objectivists hold life as their standard of value. So it would be fundamentally hedonist to advocate seeking pleasure in a manner that is destructive to one’s long term life, for the sake of that pleasure. But advocating pleasure as such, whether it has been shown to be destructive or not, is not hedonism. Objectivism is not (thank goodness) pleasure averse.

If you can establish that a certain instance or category of sex is destructive to one’s long term life, then you have shown it to be improper per Objectivism. But not apart from that.

Again: why would I need to establish that it is destructive, before you establish (using an Objectivist standard, not a hedonistic one) that it is useful?

This is putting the cart before the horse. Rather, if we choose pleasure at the expense of our values (that is, our “Objectivist values,” which are derived from life), then we are hedonist. But again, there is nothing wrong with pursuing pleasure, as such. Do you dislike pleasure?

Pleasure is the result of making rational decisions, not the source of those decisions. I dislike decisions motivated by pleasure instead of an objective standard of values, yes.

Ah, but do you see what you’ve done right here?

Sentences 1 & 2: “The inter-connectedness of values and sexual desires isn’t a choice. It is a fact of nature.”

I don’t know that anyone is arguing against the “inter-connectedness of values and sexual desires.” But let’s see where you go with it…

Sentence 3: “If we treat sex as if it stands in a vacuum, and have sex with no concern for our highest values, that is a costly mistake.”

Hey! Where’d you get that word “highest” from??

Our values are hierarchical. When we refer to our values, we refer to our highest values above all other values. Not considering our highest values is the logical equivalent of not considering our values.

[DonAthos]

I may disagree with this depending on what you mean by enjoyable. I assume the broadest of meaning but would clarify that I don’t view a lack of enjoyment in the physical sense or even serious discomfort as an inhibition to the achievement of happiness in a more long term sense and that more often than not, discomfort is a part of the package for serious achievement and the more meaningful kinds of satisfaction.

I agree with you on all counts. And yes, serious physical discomfort is often needed for happiness, or even life on its most literal level (like a life-saving surgery and the following rehabilitation). And yet, if life were nothing but pain and suffering, we should hardly fight for it. Ultimately we care for life because of our experience of the pleasures and happiness that our choices can bring us, not for the sake of flipping pages on a calendar. So I account those pleasures and happiness (so long as they are consonant with life, as such) as being “the good.”

But we may still have to hammer this out, and quite frankly, I’m not yet satisfied with my own abilities to describe what I mean here. Above all, I think that neither of us would advise “serious discomfort” except as means to some greater enjoyment of life (pleasure, happiness, a longer, more fulfilling life), and likewise I don’t think we should discourage taking pleasure in life, except when it prevents one from achieving those selfsame greater values.

Sure, but the amount of the other good that exists has to be related to your perception of your partners quality, right?

In large part, yes (though I don’t know if even that covers it; I suspect there’s lots of good where sex is concerned). I’ve never denied it – a great partner (meaning more than “great looking” or “great in bed” but great) makes sex great or even greater. My argument isn’t against sex with an ideal partner (or the best you can find, provided she’s something better than Supermodel Stalin); it is against the idea that sex apart from this ideal partner is necessarily immoral.

If we were discussing steak, I would tell you flat out that the best I’ve ever had was at Emeril Lagasse’s Delmonicos’s in Las Vegas. Other steaks don’t compare to it. And all else being equal, I would never have a steak at Chili’s over another steak from Delmonico’s.

But does this mean that I should never have another steak at Chili’s? Or that it would be immoral if I did?

And to anticipate the ever-present “indiscriminate steak eater” objection, no, this doesn’t mean that I advocate eating rancid, uncooked steaks that you find in the dumpster; there is middle ground (a lot of it), between “indiscriminate” or otherwise lacking in value, and “highest value.” The middle ground exists – it’s called Chili’s – and it’s not Delmonico’s, but it’s not all that bad, either.

This is probably the fundamental difference separating our respective opinions. (And to be fair, I should note that it is where I seem to part company with many Objectivists…so you are in good company, not me)

I appreciate the sentiment… but honestly? The only company I seek is truth. If you’re right about something, anything, I’d rather be in your company on that issue, no matter who sits on the opposite side.

I believe in free will but it’s a pretty delimited version compared to what I have seen in the Objectivist community. So…“gets associated” by the person having the experience. And to be sure, they could consider it and look for causation and affect on their psyche, but it’s not usually enough and only consistently applied for issues that are more directly harmful.

Introspection is an undervalued, underperformed art. No argument there.

Even in those circumstances I don’t see rational consideration of psychological issues as adequate in any sense for the resolution of those issues. As an example, I have a friend who grew up with an emotionally abrasive, demanding father and an enabling kind mother who subsequently gets walked over. This example caused her to learn that being emotionally abrasive and demanding in relationships is a far better strategy to get what she wants. Even with the conscious realization of the incorrectness of her approach through therapy, she still cannot will herself into correct behavior. The experiences are far too internalized to allow for an about face. I see it the same with any enduring habit. Smoking, meaningless sex, nail biting, or whatever. Ultimately in your control? Sure. With enough effort and appropriate strategies one can change quite a bit. But stop the effects of the habit from forming through will alone or by conscious consideration? Not in my experience. I think that your experiences affect and change you whether you want them to or not and to change them in another way requires a good deal of work.

I’m not precisely sure what this means for the totality of our discussion, but honestly? I don’t think you’re wrong at all. It is one thing to make a conscious decision to be a different, a better person in some way. It’s another to implement that, and that implementation often takes time, and hard work, and there can be many obstacles in a person’s path.

For myself, I’ve had to deal with issues of depression and anger for most of my life. I can tell you about my childhood, and my own suspicions of where I picked up some of those attitudes, but what matters most to me is how I work to better myself, now and with what I have. (And I see “free will” as being a range of choices, that range informed by the context/circumstances of your actual life and history – not some absolute mastery to be whatever you want to be, or do whatever you want to do, at the very instant you’ve willed it.)

And yet, I’m not sure how much that childhood experiences, or behavioral/emotional habits instilled in a youth’s mind, correlates to having sex with a woman as an adult (or late teen, in any event), and then being unable to evaluate her reasonably due to having experienced that pleasure.

Since we’re agreed (I believe) that many people suck at being introspective, or rational and ethical more generally, then many people will have this difficulty, it is true. But again, that’s not due to any problems with casual sex – instead that’s a problem which some people have in thinking objectively, or in reason.

Sure, if you have actually met any.

LOL. I wish. (Maybe?)

No, I don’t have any experience with prostitutes of any variety (that I know of) – most of my experience with hookers comes from art. But if John Galt, Hank Rearden, et al., in Atlas Shrugged stand as proof that such men can exist, then what of Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman, or Jamie Lee Curtis in Trading Places (she was a hooker – right?), or Inara in Firefly, or… Kira Argounova in We the Living?

I suppose, if it was limited to that. I just don’t believe that it can be without a mind/body dichotomy.

Can you expand on this? I love mind/body splits! (By which I mean that I despise them, and like rooting them out.)

I’ve just seen it that way. Otherwise rational guys with a Quixotic tendency. "I slept with her so she’s definitely not a whore, she’s a princess. "

Oh man, that’s another great whore – Aldonza (in Man of La Mancha, at least)! Of course, I would contend that Quixote saw what was true of her beyond her superficial appearance – Dulcinea del Toboso, the princess within – and that his vision of life-as-it-ought-to-be helped to draw those qualities out of her, and helped to make her aware of them, too. But I’m disposed to defend Quixote. (The “Don” in my handle is taken thence, reflecting a nearly lifelong love with the character.)

As regards what you’ve actually said, I agree that some people do do that. I just don’t think that it’s unavoidable, or that all people do that. And thus I don’t think we can condemn casual sex on that basis.

This is mostly covered in what I wrote above, but at the risk of verbosity, it depends on where you are at. For some, casual sex might be a step up. I know a gal who after several relationships with dishonest men see’s short term sex buddies as far preferable. For her, it probably is. Not the best of all possible worlds, and probably not even the best she could do with a better philosophy, but probably the best she can hope for with where she’s at.

So take two identical twins, Christy and Misty. At 15 Chisty, the more social of the two gets invited to a party. She get’s a little too drunk and wakes up to find she lost her virginity to Blake. She never would have chosen him but you know how those things are. Feeling the blow to her self esteem, she finally agrees to start going out with Nathan, a dopey pothead that’s been hitting on her for the better part of the year. After a couple months of mediocre sex and lounging about in his parents basement, they break up and she moves on to a string of other so so relationships ending in an accidental pregnancy with Eddie who has a good deal of trouble holding down a job for more than a few months. Misty meanwhile has an enduring friendship with Wesley, her slightly geeky but fairly brilliant lab partner. By their senior year they move into a relationship and consciously choose to be each others first. It lasts through their second year of college but ultimately fails from the long distance between them and minor differences. She eventually moves on with a secure sense of what she’s looking for, finding Peter, who has a lot in common with Wesley but is a good deal more masculine and mature and close. They get married and live happily ever after.

So who has the better concept of sex? Who has better sex? After Christy’s previous experiences, how much would you bet on her changing her expectations and desires? Is she more or less likely to find her “Peter?” For me, the answers are obvious.

Oh, for me, too. No question. Though I’m not sure how much this strictly has to do with “sex,” or how casually one approaches it, and how much it has to do with one’s life choices overall. Let me explain what I mean by way of a contrasting story:

Suppose that Christy decided that, due to her experience of having been raped by Blake, she is not going to have sex again apart from meeting her ideal mate – like the heroes she’s read about in The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. She hangs out with Nathan, a dopey pothead, but she’s not interested in him romantically… or anyone else at the school, and she barely tolerates his friendship, which is largely a byproduct of a childhood association. Nobody measures up to her standards. By the time she’s in college, she has a hard time dealing with anyone she meets, let alone on a “romantic” level, and prefers to be solitary in her room. She finds college guys woefully immature and insensitive, and begins to doubt whether she’ll ever find someone worthy of her, and the true virginity of her willfully-given consent. She resents the laughter she hears through the dorm walls at night, and the other… noises. She contents herself by imagining that they’re acting immorally, like hedonists – they must be, they’re always smiling – and are destroying their future capacity for pleasure (somehow, to be determined later), while she… she will have an even greater pleasure… someday. Though others on her floor invite her to parties, Christy never goes. She knows well what might happen at such parties, and she’s not about to make that mistake again. She graduates from college never having gone out on a date.

Meanwhile, Misty likes Wesley, her slightly geeky but fairly brilliant lab partner. While she enjoys her budding relationship with Wesley, she also dates Jonathan and Steve on occassion. Jonathan and Steve are nice guys, and good looking, and Misty has fun with them, studying and “fooling around,” but she doesn’t yet feel ready to have sex with anyone or commit to a “serious” relationship. Finally she and Wesley decide to see one another exclusively. And rather than wait, they have sex with one another straight off, which they find to be pleasant, but somewhat awkward (largely due to their inexperience).

When the strains of distance dating eventually separate Misty from Wesley, Misty decides that she should spend some time “enjoying being single.” She dates lots of men, because there are a bevy of intelligent, good-looking single men on campus. Many of them she ultimately finds unappealing in a life-partner way for one reason or another, but several are still very interesting and attractive, and pleasant to spend time with, and she winds up sleeping with some number of them – not very many, mind, but more than a few. She finds she has a passion for good sex, it makes her feel so alive and vital. During this time, she learns much more about herself and her interests in these kinds of relationships, both sexual and otherwise (partly aided by the contrast she finds among her chosen lovers). Some people see her as a “party girl,” and her sister actually calls her “promiscuous” at one point, and asserts (rather without explanation) that she is acting “improperly.” But Misty is enjoying herself, and getting good grades, and she’s received no complaints from the men she’s dated. So she doesn’t see the need to stop.

One day Misty goes to a party (to which Christy was also invited, but refused to attend “on principle”) and meets Peter. She has a lot in common with Peter – they’ve both been actively dating, and have loved “the college lifestyle” – and actually she finds that he’s much like Wesley, but a good deal more masculine and mature and close. When they have sex, they’re both pleased to discover that they have a good understanding of how to please, and be pleased, and they’re not jealous of each other’s experiences, because they realize that those experiences have contributed to their capacity to have a such rich and fulfilling relationship with one another. Misty, after all, has made some mistakes along the way, with Wesley and with others, and she’s glad that she’s learned from those mistakes so that she doesn’t accidentally drive Peter away, who potentially represents a great value for the rest of her life. She finds that Peter is so wonderful, she’s ready to commit again to a long term relationship, and so they get married and live happily ever after.

So this is another possible story. And of the four, I would not wish to be Christy in either, but I would like to be Misty (or her male equivalent, at any rate). I do not think that what makes the difference between Christy and Misty is their approach to “casual sex” – do you? (Or at least, I don’t think that Misty’s approach to sex in my rewrite is doing her any harm. And maybe it’s even good?)

By the way, I recognize that Christy’s second story may very well have another chapter which in some way redeems her (though I don’t know whether it would be sufficient to make up for all those nights, laying there alone in her dorm room). It all depends in how we write the tale. Since I’m playing author, I’ll give her a “happy ending” – it seems the least I can do:

Sometime there after, say in Christy’s midlife, she runs into her old “friend” Nathan once more, though now, he goes by his full name – “Nathaniel.” He’s given up pot, and actually has refashioned himself into the kind of man that Christy has always wanted. The kind of man in preparation for whom she’s refused even the slightest bit of physical intimacy or pleasure for decades. She is convinced that her wait has paid off: she has finally found her highest ideals made manifest, and that nothing can ever, ever go wrong. Not with a man like Nathaniel.

And nothing ever does.

Like the “prostitute with a heart of gold,” the girl who changes her ways and finds true love is more a part of Hollywood than real life. In real life, a heart of gold doesn’t land you in the sex trade world and when it does, you don’t keep your heart of gold. They are both in between versions but spread out enough to draw a reasonable conclusion about which side one ought to aim for.

I think that the illegality of prostitution, and the dominant culture which casts sex as evil, in general, predisposes the prostitutes one might find on the current day street to be mainly as you suggest. I do not know that in a more rational culture, one that values trade, respects rights, believes in self-ownership, and that pleasure is life-affirming and good, that this would necessarily be so.

Casual sex implies not discriminating much, to me. I suppose you could descriminate a bit. On looks, or sense of humor, or that sort of thing.

Yes, those sorts of things. And also intelligence (perceived), and productivity, and etc., etc., etc. And by the way, let’s not discount “looks” or “sense of humor,” as even those qualities may tell you a fair bit about a person.

You may find a reasonably intelligent person, reasonably productive, who is good looking enough, and with a good enough sense of humor, that you find them attractive – sexually attractive – and worth spending time with (though perhaps not marrying; though perhaps not dating for an extended period of time, or exclusively). You may discriminate in that you would not sleep with just “anyone,” yet you might decide to sleep with this person, though they do not possess your “highest values.” This is casual sex.

But directionally speaking, the extent to which you discriminate is the extent to which you’re not leaving your choice to chance.

Let’s say that the more you investigate a particular stock before investing in it, the less you’re “leaving to chance.” No amount of investigation protects your investment 100%, and at some point you must assess the risks and decide whether it’s worth it to participate.

If I see a good-looking woman at the bar, and on that basis decide to approach her, I am already “discriminating.” If I chat her up, and begin to get a feel for who she is, I am discriminating further. When we discuss the music we like, etc., the process continues. All the while, I make conscious or subconscious note of items like how she uses her eyes, how she smiles, etc. All of this is information, and it is reflected in how attracted I find myself to her (though I can also reach conscious conclusions). She invites me to her place for continued conversation, and the subtext is clear. At some point, whether that night or sometime later, knowing her to some extent, more or less, but never 100%, I must decide whether it’s worth the risks of sex (such as they are) to engage her in intercourse. None of this is done without discrimination, yet all such decisions necessarily entail risk.