Is the Objectivist view of sex flawed?

[DonAthos]

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?

Why would you need to establish that it is destructive? Because you are claiming that it is destructive. Remember: this entire conversation is taking place in the context of Rand’s claims re: sex. She lays claim to sex being improper apart from “the ground of the highest values one can find in a human being.” At present, that stands as an unsubstantiated assertion.

But it doesn’t have to remain that way (and if it’s true, I’d rather it didn’t). The way to substantiate it is to demonstrate precisely how casual sex is destructive. If you can’t make that case, I don’t blame you for it (thus far I think that the case is unavailable – beyond the bounds of reason and reality), but in the absence of such a demonstration, Rand’s claims will remain unproven, unshown.

Now, apart from that, can I make the positive case? – can I demonstrate the “utility” of pleasure? Is that really necessary, do you believe? Apart from such a demonstration, you would think it fair game to just consign all interest in the experience of pleasure to “hedonism” and immorality? I invite you to reflect on this for a moment or two. Please note: it is not the case that “all things are bad until they are shown good.” While in response a person may say that it is also not the case that “all things are good until they are shown bad,” I’d contend that a benevolent universe might well give “good” the benefit of the doubt.

With all that said, let me take a stab at it anyways. How about that pleasure reminds us – in visceral fashion – that life is something to continue to work for, to fight for? It reminds us that life is good , on the most basic level possible. Perhaps it functions in a fashion similar to the experience of art. Regarding this, Rand wrote in “The Goal of My Writing”:

The importance of that experience is not in what he learns from it, but in that he experiences it. The fuel is not a theoretical principle, not a didactic “message,” but the life-giving fact of experiencing a moment of metaphysical joy—a moment of love for existence.

Perhaps physical pleasure similarly gives us “a moment of love for existence,” and where sex is specifically concerned, also for our own terrific capacities in both providing and receiving it. Meh, I’m no professional philosopher, so I’m sure I’m not couching this correctly… but yeah, I’ll stand by the notion that “pleasure,” apart from being destructive of our higher values, is good.

Pleasure is the result of making rational decisions, not the source of those decisions.

I don’t believe this is correct. Rather, I believe that pleasure and pain are biological realities. That certain physical activities cause pleasure or pain is factual information, and it is upon such information that we make decisions. The standard of value for our decisions is life, but we still must have an understanding of what things are, and their actual effects, in order to apply that standard in reality.

That touching a hot stove causes intense pain is reason enough not to touch the hot stove. Pain in this case is not “the result of making irrational decisions” – it is the result of touching a hot stove. Touching a hot stove would be an irrational thing to do, because to touch it would result in pain, scarring, etc., and thus be self-destructive. It is through that pain that we recognize the self-destructive (i.e. anti-life) nature of the act.

And of course we could invent a scenario in which a person must touch a hot stove to do something ultimately life affirming – like rescuing our child from the stove, or such, but in the bare case of the hot stove is there, and we seek not to touch it, we are acting so because pain is something, all else being equal, we seek to avoid. Pleasure works similarly, but in opposite fashion: all else being equal, we seek to experience it. In a way, pleasure and pain are proxies for life and death, and I think someone committed to life will love pleasure and despise pain (though temporarily deny the former and tolerate the latter, should higher values reasonably require it), and someone committed to death will tend the other way.

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.

I’m having a hard time making sense of this, in light of the specific material we’re discussing. Would you mind helping me to get at the meaning? Here, again, is the quote incorporating the phrase “highest values”:

“A sexual relationship is proper only on the ground of the highest values one can find in a human being.”

What specifically do you think that Rand meant by “the highest values one can find in a human being”? I don’t think it’s just a matter (or the “logical equivalent”) of “considering our values” as such. For instance, I don’t think that Rand would have similarly asserted (and with the same intent) that where bowling is concerned, “joining a bowling league is proper only on the ground of the highest values one can find in a human being.” Though perhaps I’m mistaken? Maybe Rand feels this way about every activity, as certainly we should always seek to “consider our values,” and specifying “a sexual relationship” was mere redundancy?

But I don’t think so. I think that “values” and “highest values” are different things, in the context of this conversation, and values being hierarchical notwithstanding. I think we must respect this difference in our discussion.

Anyways, I’ve provided a number of scenarios throughout this thread, to exemplify what I mean by “casual sex” (which is what Rand is speaking against through this quote), so perhaps it would help me to understand what you think we’re actually talking about, if you could phrase your understanding of her quote in terms of those examples I’ve provided? Which are “casual”? Which are not? Which are improper, and why? Or you could provide more of your own, just as you did with Supermodel Stalin. Incidentally, you and I are both against sex with Supermodel Stalin, so that’s not what I mean by “casual sex” – or at least that variety of sex I would find moral. We’ll need some more variety in scenarios other than awful, repulsive options in order to suss these matters out.

[Eiuol]

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.

I agree with this statement, but perhaps my bigger wonder is what “looks promising” is supposed to mean. Promising for a long-term relationship? For being a highly valued person? Sure, there are definite points, but to me, as presented, so few situations are actually in those definite points. Well, Sandy as an example is still vague. Comparatively, yeah, Sandy is a more notable value. However, I see nothing that really suggests anything other than that at a minimum, she’s a friend. That’s a big part of the discussion here in the first place. If you’re saying that’s perfectly fine if she’s a friend, and that if Sandy was in a relationship with you it’d be an even better option better option, we’re in agreement. If you’re suggesting a higher standard than that supposing a pretty normal context, I definitely disagree.

The rest isn’t directed at anyone specifically.

I think DonAthos’ revised Misty/Christy story is a better way to represent what I’m thinking. Misty seems to have standards that matter but not at the level of “relationship”, as well as an approach that it is important for understanding sexual and/or romantic situations. My thinking is that whether or not Misty’s approach is good depends upon her interest in understanding sex and her sex drive. People are able to learn in a variety of ways, so for Misty, maybe she’d further her own life more by taking sex more casually and outside of relationships. Another person less interested in sex may be better off only pursuing sex in relationships, because there isn’t as much to be gained. For activities and practical skills, first-hand experience is the best way to understand - whether it be sex, video games, or writing. Sex is a bit different though because it requires other people, so the other person has to meet standards of… that’s where I’m hazy.

[bluecherry]

“Looks promising” for being the kind of person one could romantically love. These kinds of people are not a dime a dozen, you won’t find them just any given day and it may take a while to find somebody who fits this, yes. However, there are plenty of things where having uncommon opportunities to get them within certain ways does not justify resorting to other. You’d need more than just slow going to make it okay to change standards.

To the Misty and Christy thing, I don’t see anything convincing there. One can practice with a romantic partner once they get one, there’s no need to be some kind of sex master before getting into a relationship. Not having sex at parties also doesn’t need to result in being a recluse full of bitterness and resentment. If you really think something is a bad idea and harmful then you don’t get jealous of people who do/have it. Is anybody here jealous of thieves?

[DonAthos]

To the Misty and Christy thing, I don’t see anything convincing there.

“Convincing” of what?

Did you happen to read my preface, or consider it as context while framing your reply? Here it is again:

Though I’m not sure how much this [referring to aequalsa’s original tale, meant to show how “causal sex” is destructive] 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:

And afterwards, I said:

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?)

So listen, my story isn’t meant to establish that one needs to be a “sex master before getting into a relationship” or that deciding against having some particular sex will “result in being a recluse full of bitterness and resentment.” And I’m upfront about the fact that there’s more going on (including in aequalsa’s presentation) than simply a different approach to “casual sex.” But I do intend to show what I believe is possible: that casual sex can contribute to a person’s life; that it can be good. That having casual sex is at the least not necessarily destructive. And if that is the case, then my case is made, and casual sex is not necessarily improper.

But if you think I’m wrong, and the story is not convincing to my actual goal, then can you demonstrate what specific mistakes Misty made? Show me how Misty hurt herself, how she sacrificed greater values for lesser values. Unless you think that my story is “unrealistic” – that these events can not have taken place, in reality, for some good reason. But that would require demonstration as well.

One can practice with a romantic partner once they get one, there’s no need to be some kind of sex master before getting into a relationship.

Nope, there’s no “need” to be a sex master before getting into a relationship.

But is there a good reason not to be a sex master? Is that, of itself, wrong? Or is mastery of one’s body, and one’s ability to do the things one likes, one enjoys, those things that contribute to our overall experience of life – is such a mastery to be valued at all?

(And yes, and yes, and yes, “that mastery is wrong, and not desirable at all, if in acquiring it you sacrifice your greater values.” This is true – and always remains true – of everything. Sacrifice is bad. But then you must show how becoming a sex master, as through my example or something like it, necessarily entails such sacrifice.)

Not having sex at parties also doesn’t need to result in being a recluse full of bitterness and resentment. If you really think something is a bad idea and harmful then you don’t get jealous of people who do/have it. Is anybody here jealous of thieves?

Obviously “not having sex at parties,” context-free, doesn’t need to result in anything. But Christy, in my example, is an irrational lady. She thinks that sex is only proper in a certain, particular context – and she’s wrong. Her decisions entail self-sacrifice, of pleasures and relationships which would add to her life, and my story intends to demonstrate that.

Her jealousy is the result of being aware on some level of her own errors, but she does her best to push that evidence and reasoning from her mind (I imagine her physically pressing her pillow to her ears, to blot out the sounds of other people enjoying themselves; she does not want to be reminded of their joy).

If Christy equates Misty’s lifestyle to thievery, that’s fine – but Christy is wrong, and that has deleterious consequences for her (being wrong always does). But if you think my story is flawed, and that Misty’s lifestyle is akin to thievery, that’s fine too, so long as you can prove it. So yeah, what did Misty do wrong exactly?

[bluecherry]

I had just read the little tales themselves since Eiuol referenced them and I was trying to reply to him. Looks like I did miss something relevant. My bad, sorry Anyway, all the Christy/Misty stories are fictional, so none of them really help progress the discussion.

“Nope, there’s no “need” to be a sex master before getting into a relationship. But is there a good reason not to be a sex master? Is that, of itself, wrong? Or is mastery of one’s body, and one’s ability to do the things one likes, one enjoys, those things that contribute to our overall experience of life – is such a mastery to be valued at all?”

Maybe this was unintentional, but as written you switched from “before getting into a relationship” to at all, ever. I didn’t object to sex mastery - heck, more power to ya’ if you are one. What I objected to was the use of mastering sexual techniques as an argument in favor of lowering sexual standards since it can be done in a relationship and no romantic partner worth the time of day would have a problem with it if you are learning with them. I’m sure “practice” would just be enjoyed as an excuse to have even more sex. Mastering sex could be done just fine either way so it doesn’t serve as an argument for or against casual sex.

Christy, again, is fictional though so she can’t really prove anything by her reactions. If you mean to claim that reactions like Christy’s are the inevitable result of determining sex should be reserved for serious romantic relationships and acting on that, that one cannot go without such negative results in such a case, then that is very easily disproved. Hi. I’m real. I’m not in favor of casual sex and don’t do it and I am not a bitter hermit. Unless somebody brings up the casual sex topic, it’s not on my mind. I have friends. I go to parties sometimes. I’m not mad or sneering at people having casual sex, I’m just generally not thinking about them. Don’t care. Their problem, not mine. I would be irritated though if people were having some noisy party making it hard for me to sleep in my dorm. I had those kinds of noisy neighbors in my most recent semester of college and it got on my nerves. It wasn’t related to sex though, just making it hard for me to sleep because they were loud. I’m not trying to make some direct comparison between casual sex and thievery though, I just meant that any time somebody really believes something is detrimental to themself then they don’t get jealous of people doing/having it. As for what’s wrong with what Misty is doing, I have earlier been discussing troubles with these kinds of things. Misty just isn’t in quite as extreme as the whole “supermodel Stalin” thing people have being using as an example on occasion. Still sounds like she’s well on the wrong side of the “enough versus not enough” value dividing line.

[DonAthos]

I had just read the little tales themselves since Eiuol referenced them and I was trying to reply to him. Looks like I did miss something relevant. My bad, sorry Anyway, all the Christy/Misty stories are fictional, so none of them really help progress the discussion.

None of them really help progress the discussion?

Do you hold this sort of opinion for, say, The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged? The tales within don’t really speak to actual, real life matters or philosophy, because after all – they’re fictional, so they don’t “really help progress the discussion”?

“Nope, there’s no “need” to be a sex master before getting into a relationship. But is there a good reason not to be a sex master? Is that, of itself, wrong? Or is mastery of one’s body, and one’s ability to do the things one likes, one enjoys, those things that contribute to our overall experience of life – is such a mastery to be valued at all?”

Maybe this was unintentional, but as written you switched from “before getting into a relationship” to at all, ever. I didn’t object to sex mastery - heck, more power to ya’ if you are one. What I objected to was the use of mastering sexual techniques as an argument in favor of lowering sexual standards…

Well it helps to explain these miscommunications all around that this was the source of your objection, because no one was making an argument that one should “lower sexual standards” for the sake of “mastering sexual techniques.”

Christy, again, is fictional though so she can’t really prove anything by her reactions. If you mean to claim that reactions like Christy’s are the inevitable result of determining sex should be reserved for serious romantic relationships and acting on that…

Well… actually I think I’ve explicitly specified, a few times now, exactly what I meant to claim. And reactions like Christy’s aren’t the inevitable result of anything (any more than support for socialist programs guarantees you’ll die in a train accident), but irrationality and immorality will always have some negative consequence. Christy’s poor experiences, in this story, are one such possible outcome exemplified.

…that one cannot go without such negative results in such a case, then that is very easily disproved. Hi. I’m real. I’m not in favor of casual sex and don’t do it and I am not a bitter hermit.

Yay – we’ve hit upon a solution! Rand’s case is just as “easily disproved”:

Hi, I’m real too, and I think casual sex is okay in certain situations. I’ve had casual sex, I’ve enjoyed it, and I currently have a wonderful wife and partnership.

Does that resolve the matter?

As for what’s wrong with what Misty is doing, I have earlier been discussing troubles with these kinds of things. Misty just isn’t in quite as extreme as the whole “supermodel Stalin” thing people have being using as an example on occasion. Still sounds like she’s well on the wrong side of the “enough versus not enough” value dividing line.

Okay, so we’ve granted that Misty, in dating good looking, intelligent men, and enjoying sex with them, and marrying a wonderful man to whom she’s deeply attracted and “living happily ever after” with him, is not “quite as extreme” in her immorality as having sex with Joseph Stalin in stilettos.

I’ll put that on the “positive” side of casual sex. Excellent.

But you would still put her “well on the wrong side of the ‘enough versus not enough’ value dividing line”? This is excellent, too, because this appears to speak to the heart of the matter. So please, if you wouldn’t mind? Tell me very specifically what damage Misty has done to herself. If she’s on the wrong side (let alone “well on the wrong side”), she must be hurting herself, hurting her life. That’s what immorality does. That’s why we’re against it, and why it’s important, and why we care enough to discuss these things.

I know you say that you’ve been “discussing troubles with [those] kinds of things,” but I’ve responded to that discussion and your specific arguments, and don’t think you’ve yet made the case. Unless I missed something vital? But we can make it very simple to understand from this point forward: all you have to do is point out how Misty suffers from her decisions. But I do want to understand how she suffers specifically – I want to know the extent of the damage done to her life, and how that happens. If you wouldn’t mind?

[Eiuol]

Sure, his examples are fiction, but I can’t see how any of this can be discussed without at least invented, plausible examples. Perhaps there is an actual story out there to talk about, but I can’t think of one. I think Don is fair in saying that if his examples are unrealistic, point out what makes the whole thing unproductive to discuss. Christy is clearly prudish and thinking in a rationalistic way, but that may be irrelevant to discussion. I doubt anyone is going to claim that one should go as far to say “never sex before marriage!”.

The Misty example does add some concreteness to a quite abstract discussion. It’s an attempt to give a context realistic enough that we can discuss what casual sex is supposed to mean in this discussion. If we call Misty’s behavior “casual sex” I don’t think even matters. I interpreted her (fictional) intention to be that of desiring to understand sex - abstractly and concretely - in order to make her own life better overall. She didn’t have sex just for the hell of it, the consequences be damned. Maybe one can claim that Misty is in fact doing herself harm in the long run, even if she’s quite alright now, and she believes herself to be. But what kind of harm is she doing to herself in the long-run? Surely we can project what harm could be caused, even if this is fiction. Projecting ahead is how any action can be judged as a bad idea and therefore immoral.

Still sounds like she’s well on the wrong side of the “enough versus not enough” value dividing line.

Why does it sound like she’s on the wrong side of “enough versus not enough” dividing line? True, she had sex with people that she was not in a romantic relationship with. At least, I think that’s what your reasoning is. But that sounds an awful like taking important ideas for granted. As I was trying to reason from your own examples, Sandy does easily pass the “enough” line without being a romantic partner. So, I’m not seeing what your objection actually is. I attempted to get at reasons why Misty’s relatively casual approach (hardly at the level of random hookups, to be sure) could be perfectly alright and moral.

People do vary in their general interest in sex and sex drive. Not that sex matters less for people with low sex drives or low interest levels are making an error, but the pursuit of understanding isn’t nearly as strong. By understand, I don’t mean anything like mastering sexual technique. I mean grasping what sex means, fully and experientially. Finding a romantic relationship is certainly one of the most difficult things to do, so it’s important to think about how sex should be treated outside of a relationship. If one’s interest is on the lower end, there is less desire to figure it all out, and just sex in romantic relationships is perfectly fine. If one’s interest is on the higher end, there is plenty of desire to figure it all out. I don’t mean that one is enslaved to their passions where sexual urge is just a primal desire to be satisfied whatever the cost. That’s why I brought up other examples of practical wisdom (I shouldn’t have said skill). Practical wisdom is acquired by *doing*, so practical wisdom about sex can only be acquired by having sex. For some, practical wisdom of sex is extremely important for whatever reason (just as some people care about being a good musician more than being a good writer), so standards should be altered accordingly. That “whatever” reason may simply be “given my context in life right now absent a romantic partner, yet knowing several really awesome people, and given a high sex drive and interest in understanding sex better, it’d be worth having sex with those awesome people”. Hardly absent of standard, but certainly casual in some sense.

I’ll bust out some Aristotle quotes if my points on practical wisdom are unclear.

[aequalsa]

Suppose that Christy decided that, due to her experience

I’ll respond to more later, but I think that your rework of my example has explained(to my satisfaction, at least) the fundamental difference between myself and people who view romantic “experience” as a generally positive trait.

In short, I’ve found little value in experience going forward in relationships. Sexually, what is really pleasing to one woman is not to the next and the systems of interaction and behavior that make one relationship flow cohesively along is ineffectual in the next or maybe even damaging.

I’ve certainly changed and grown and learned during the time that I have been in those relationships but that causation in that change I would not say has been primarily the romantic relationships, but rather all my experiences over that time. I would guess that for you(because basically you’ve said so) your experiences in relationships have had a strong impact on how you are in relationships. My hunch is that which side of this fence you fall on depends a lot on how early you had an idea of what you wanted from a relationship. This difference would be akin to the difference between people who realize from the age of 6 that they wanted to be a doctor(or whatever) and people who flitter around a bit until they’re 27 before they decide on their career.

Does that sound like your experience of it?

[DonAthos]

Does that sound like your experience of it?

I’ll work my way through and let you judge.

I’ll respond to more later, but I think that your rework of my example has explained(to my satisfaction, at least) the fundamental difference between myself and people who view romantic “experience” as a generally positive trait.

In short, I’ve found little value in experience going forward in relationships.

I know that primarily we’re talking about sexual/romantic relationships, but can I say that there seems to be a more general case available here, and it’s to that general case I’d like to speak.

People are individual, and in many ways unique. Yet there are also commonalities among people, and what we learn from our dealings with them can often be used in new situations. I think that a salesman who “found little value in experience” in his dealings with previous clients would make for a poor salesman; likewise a manager; likewise one who works under managers. Being a good salesman, or a good manager, or a good employee, or a good friend, or a good lover – all of these are skill sets. And while we can do much to prepare, you and I, sitting here and talking about what’s required… there’s more to be learned than I think it would occur to us to cover. And some of what must be learned, I suspect can only be learned in the doing.

Sexually, what is really pleasing to one woman is not to the next and the systems of interaction and behavior that make one relationship flow cohesively along is ineffectual in the next or maybe even damaging.

This is somewhat true, and somewhat not, I’ve found. Again – individual and unique… yet commonalities. Since sex remains the context, I’ll report that I’m a better lover today than the first time I made love. And not just “for a given woman, with whom I’ve had practice,” but better generally; I would trust myself more in a first-time encounter, for instance. And also, if I had to start a romantic relationship from scratch, I believe that what I’ve learned throughout the years would assist me in that endeavor as well.

The specific person with whom you’re dealing, as in every other context I’ve supplied or otherwise (client, employee, manager, etc.), must be approached individually. There is a learning curve for every specific application. But a strong base of general knowledge helps, too.

There are many analogies that I think could help illuminate this, but consider computer science: every computer language is unique, and its particular terms and grammar must be learned. However, someone with a breadth of computer language knowledge and programming experience will have a framework of understanding that will allow him to understand and integrate the new elements of whatever language more efficiently and more effectively than someone who had never learned any computer language or programmed at all.

I’ve certainly changed and grown and learned during the time that I have been in those relationships but that causation in that change I would not say has been primarily the romantic relationships, but rather all my experiences over that time.

I don’t mean to single romantic relationships out as being educational in a categorical way that other experiences are not; they all contribute to “growth.” But the situations that arise in romantic relationships can be rather particular to that category – I deal with things with my wife, for instance, that would never come up between me and my mother, or me and my best friend. And also the very intimacy of romantic relationships – which forms so much of the basis for the casual sex critique – can sometimes make these kinds of experiences rather… vital. It is one thing to see a person every once in a while, for dinner or a movie. It’s quite another to share a bed, to wake up and go to sleep together, and bear with another person through the ups and downs of daily life.

I would guess that for you(because basically you’ve said so) your experiences in relationships have had a strong impact on how you are in relationships.

I try to learn from all that I do. I try to keep moving, like a shark. (But a positive shark, of happiness and rainbows.)

My hunch is that which side of this fence you fall on depends a lot on how early you had an idea of what you wanted from a relationship. This difference would be akin to the difference between people who realize from the age of 6 that they wanted to be a doctor(or whatever) and people who flitter around a bit until they’re 27 before they decide on their career.

I’m very glad that I’ve not been locked into the plans of six-year-old me. And that’s not to take away from those who feel confident in such early-formed plans, or execute them and reap the attendant benefits (and benefits there certainly are), but I really didn’t know a whole lot at the time, either about the world or about myself. I feel rather better informed right now than I did ten years ago, five years ago, or even last week. Currently, I’m expecting my first child, and I can only imagine that there’s going to be a wealth of learning for me in the next few years. Even where relationships and my wife are concerned, I expect to learn a host of new things, and especially as we deal with new scenarios and situations. I can’t take any of it for granted, and I must be constantly looking for ways of incorporating the new information, to make me better suited to achieve my goals.

Does that sound like your experience of it?

I hope some of my feedback answers that question to your satisfaction.

I’d like to make another couple of comments on this material. As I read your reply and prepared to compose my response, this was the quote at the bottom of the page:

It’s a helluva start, being able to recognize what makes you happy. --Lucille Ball

Much of what I’ve learned through romantic relationships and sexual experience has been about my own workings, requirements, and interests, rather than “how to please my partner” (though that, too). Perhaps (though I’m unsure) a six year old, or a sixteen year old, could – through some vast feat of introspection – come to understand precisely what he’s looking for in a life-long romantic partner without any practical experience? Perhaps. But that was certainly not my experience of it, and I don’t believe that I will counsel my child to operate in that fashion.

Furthermore, and just to say it, though you, and Eiuol, and bluecherry have all picked up on this idea of “casual sex/relationships as education,” that’s not really my argument’s thrust (heh. sex pun ). I believe that such education happens, and is rewarding, and maybe is even important enough to justify these experiences in certain cases… but my argument, I believe, is simpler than that. I think that the experiences of casual sex I’ve been defending, as through my re-working of Misty, are to be valued for her enjoyment of them. I think that it is of such stuff that a good life is made. If it could be shown that Misty’s actions are ultimately self-destructive, then we would agree that her behavior is improper. But if they are not demonstrably self-destructive – and if she enjoys them – then whether she learns or not from those experiences, they are worth having; they are good.

[bluecherry]

Atlas Shrugged does have things it proves reliably in there in spite of being fiction in instances where it spells out logical necessities. I used an example of myself just to prove that the exact reactions of Christy - the bitter, jealous obsession and reclusiveness she has - are not only not spelled out how *those exact types* of dysfunctional reactions are logically inevitable but in fact demonstrably not so in reality. I did *not* mean to use myself right there as a counter to any and all imaginable negatives, just the ones that Christy was said to have. I cited specific things about myself that ran counter to the way Christy acted.

" . . . but irrationality and immorality will always have some negative consequence."

Agreed. We each think the other has irrationality and immorality going on though. We can’t both be right. Neither of us would say we’ve got problems due to our positions though evidently. So, whoever is wrong just hasn’t realized their loss or hasn’t realized that some negative in their life is connected to their stance on sex. So making blanket claims that we don’t have negative consequences doesn’t prove things. We need something else to make our cases.

"Okay, so we’ve granted that Misty, in dating . . . "

Hang on. I’ve not yet seen anything to imply Misty was dating these people first and so having some actual romantic interest in them and pursuing that before having sex with them except in the case of Wesley. Whether she is getting romantically involved first or not is relevant to my assessment of her story.

Eiuol now: “As I was trying to reason from your own examples, Sandy does easily pass the ‘enough’ line without being a romantic partner.”

Actually, I was trying to quickly paint Sandy before as a hypothetical romantic interest, not just a friend. As for the people interested in the experiential knowledge of sex, again, are you terminally ill? Are your genitals rotting off? No? Then it is a pretty safe bet that time is on your side and it is on your side enough that it isn’t a disaster to hang on and just stick to masturbation until finding a romantic partner.

[Eiuol]

We can’t both be right. Neither of us would say we’ve got problems due to our positions though evidently. So, whoever is wrong just hasn’t realized their loss or hasn’t realized that some negative in their life is connected to their stance on sex.

…

Actually, I was trying to quickly paint Sandy before as a hypothetical romantic interest, not just a friend.

Both of these statements made me think about the importance of acquiring first-hand knowledge and experience about concepts in general. I can absorb and read as much about being properly egoistic as I want, but without going out and validating myself that egoism is in fact a good ethical principle, my understanding is a floating abstraction. So, I go out and live according to standards I’ve reasoned are good. This is what I mean by practical wisdom. Practical wisdom doesn’t just mean becoming good at being egoistic, but also understanding what egoism as an ethical standard *means* in a conceptual way by reducing the concept down to reality. Given how the whole process can take years, different levels of understanding are possible, and one can even be wrong, but not discover a loss or negative consequence until much later.

Switching the context to sex, one has to go out and live according to their standards of sex, and be honest enough to consider possibilities of being mistaken. I’m not saying any one in particular is wrong here - as stated, we can’t all be right. Sitting in our own little clouds of thought won’t provide answers, that’s for sure. It is necessary for all of us to test out our beliefs, and look at what happens when we live according to them. Noting missed opportunities, relationships that ended, ongoing relationships, sex outside of relationships, the feeling of sex at all, what leads to sexual attraction, etc, are all important to validating one’s ideas on sex. Missing out on one of these may mean missing on some positive or negative evidence. Mistakes are bound to be made though, so at times, it’s worth trying out different ideas, even with sex. Mistakes are also very crucial to validating some ideas, and rejecting others. So, the approach about the Misty/Christy examples may be wrong. Taking an omniscient viewpoint is not going to take into account a character’s lack of knowledge.

The approach should be “supposing both of these people want what’s best for their life, what way should they pursue sex and relationships?” What should a person in Christy’s situation do, lacking any romantic potential or perhaps interest in anyone right now? What should a person in Misty’s situation do, where for her, she has some pretty good opportunity to understand sex in a more grounded way? Now, we can project what will happen to the psychology of the two, but in a discussion thread, it is probably better to think about what one should do in a similar situation. Discussion so far has supposed some prior understanding of related concepts, including what a romantic interest is. I can’t really reliably project any consequences of sex outside a relationship without at least first knowing just what a romantic relationship is. So, I could go the Misty route, or the Christy route, or a 3rd route entirely different than the two.

Basically, I’m saying that there may very well be reasons to accept a “relationship only” stance to sex, but how does one validate their stance? You can say “by being in a relationship, of course”, though to some extent, that requires being fortuitous enough to run into someone meeting what seems to be great standards for yourself (works for a lot of people, but I’m sure it doesn’t quite work well for everyone). There may be plenty of other ways to build up understanding that are important for individual growth. Casual sex may ultimately be wrong, but discussion seems to revolve around how we can know this without just accepting an authoritative statement. I say that the only possible way to know is to physically experience sex, and some personal contexts make it so casual sex is a good option. I get the idea of masturbation being a fine “second best” option when a person is not in a relationship, but I’d claim that it’s a fundamentally different activity than sex with another person, even though it is sexual stimulation. There is intimacy with oneself, and intimacy with others.

[DonAthos]

Atlas Shrugged does have things it proves reliably in there in spite of being fiction in instances where it spells out logical necessities.

Well it’s true that fiction doesn’t typically attempt to demonstrate “logical necessities” or to “prove,” but to show cases; possibilities. Rather, formal arguments and proofs (often essays) prove. But I’ve given formal arguments for my position a few times in this thread – casual sex can be enjoyable, can be a response to values, can exist without self-destruction, can contribute to one’s life, can be good – and in the face of an apparent lack of either understanding or agreement with my arguments (though no good reasons against it provided), and in direct response to a story meant to exemplify (though not prove) my argument’s shortcomings, I thought I would show what I meant. I thought that would be helpful.

But you said of my story that it didn’t “help progress the discussion,” because it’s “fictional.” So why doesn’t seeing what I mean, “in action” as it were, help you to understand what I’m saying? Did I fail in its specific construction? Or does being fiction, as you’ve suggested, automatically disqualify it from being helpful? And if providing examples to demonstrate my views is insufficient, then what further recourse do I have to intelligibly communicate my position?

I used an example of myself just to prove that the exact reactions of Christy - the bitter, jealous obsession and reclusiveness she has - are not only not spelled out how *those exact types* of dysfunctional reactions are logically inevitable but in fact demonstrably not so in reality.

I’m not certain how many more times I should repeat that it was not my purpose to demonstrate that Christy’s particular reaction was a result of her approach to casual sex, or whether it would help. I’ve said it twice now, once as immediate context to the original story – context that you should have read, and considered, before providing your initial response – and then directly in response to you. So to continue to treat that as “my point” is missing the point, and frustrating to encounter, and something like a “straw man.”

Further, your not being like Christy, or not behaving the way that she does, does not establish that Christy’s reactions are not possible – that they couldn’t be true of someone else. People don’t work in the manner you’re implicitly suggesting: one predictable response to every situation out of “logical inevitability.” In the same way, that most immoral people do not wind up committing suicide does not show that Lillian Rearden’s particular ending is “demonstrably not so in reality.” Some immoral people may be like her in particular mannerisms or actions, but not all. Some people who share Christy’s views on sex may be like Christy in my story, but not all. Christy demonstrates one possibility of a human being. If your contention is that a person like Christy (externally committed to some “romantic standard,” but secretly jealous of others’ happiness, and lonely, and evasive of her own feelings) can not exist in reality, then I do beg to differ, and I think you’ll have to prove that with more than “I’m not that way.” Your existence does not disprove the incredible variability and variety of expression of human character, whether real or fictional, any more than most Objectivists not being a genius like John Galt means that John Galt cannot exist.

" . . . but irrationality and immorality will always have some negative consequence."

Agreed. We each think the other has irrationality and immorality going on though. We can’t both be right. Neither of us would say we’ve got problems due to our positions though evidently. So, whoever is wrong just hasn’t realized their loss or hasn’t realized that some negative in their life is connected to their stance on sex. So making blanket claims that we don’t have negative consequences doesn’t prove things. We need something else to make our cases.

I agree that we need something else to make our cases. Just to clarify, I was speaking in the context of explaining my story choices, not that I think you have “irrationality and immorality going on.” While it’s doubtless true that our attitudes and choices manifest some particular outcomes in our own lives, it would be difficult/nigh-impossible to abstract the true cause-and-effect, and especially in a forum such as this (pointing up another benefit of fiction, which strives to eliminate the inessential and thus highlight such cause-and-effect). Also, I don’t think it would be beneficial to reasonable discussion to try to start probing one another for hidden irrationality or immorality, or make accusations, etc. (Yet another benefit to fiction; we may treat Christy or Misty in any conceivable manner, and they won’t get offended.)

But no case, whether fictional or real, will “prove” anything (apart from their own possibility). Such cases are meant to exemplify our arguments for the purpose of understanding, but not prove them.

"Okay, so we’ve granted that Misty, in dating . . . "

Hang on. I’ve not yet seen anything to imply Misty was dating these people first and so having some actual romantic interest in them and pursuing that before having sex with them except in the case of Wesley. Whether she is getting romantically involved first or not is relevant to my assessment of her story.

My story stands exactly as written, and I’m not changing anything by introducing the term “dating.” As to that, here’s the relevant section, with added emphasis:

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.

I don’t believe it’s specified here, but I envision her as dating several of these men simultaneously (i.e. on an ongoing rotational basis; not literally at the same time). She finds them attractive – she is responding to their values – but she’s not holding out for “her highest values” as a condition for sex, in the way that Christy apparently is. In other words, she knows of these men, even before sleeping with them, that they are not going to be her life-long romantic partner, and yet she enjoys the experiences she has with them anyways.

Christy finds this behavior immoral, and based on your initial reaction, you do, too. So I’d still like to know what damage you believe that Misty has done to herself, through her behavior.

Eiuol now: “As I was trying to reason from your own examples, Sandy does easily pass the ‘enough’ line without being a romantic partner.”

Actually, I was trying to quickly paint Sandy before as a hypothetical romantic interest, not just a friend. As for the people interested in the experiential knowledge of sex, again, are you terminally ill? Are your genitals rotting off? No? Then it is a pretty safe bet that time is on your side and it is on your side enough that it isn’t a disaster to hang on and just stick to masturbation until finding a romantic partner.

I don’t mean to usurp Eiuol’s response, but… is this really the standard? In order for a person to be justified in having casual sex (cast again here as a means to “experiential knowledge,” but I hold as primarily a source of pleasure, and justified in that respect if the act is not demonstrably and necessarily self-destructive), he must be on death’s door? We must wait until death is immanent to enjoy life?

Why not just enjoy it now?

[DonAthos]

I get the idea of masturbation being a fine “second best” option when a person is not in a relationship, but I’d claim that it’s a fundamentally different activity than sex with another person, even though it is sexual stimulation. There is intimacy with oneself, and intimacy with others.

Do you “get” that idea?

I don’t. I’ve not chosen to focus on it, and I know it’s been claimed that masturbation is somehow fundamentally different from sex, but I don’t see how masturbation escapes from the general claims against casual sex that have been made in this thread. Take bluecherry’s original arguments:

Early on I saw it said that it was arbitrary that Rand placed this additional non-physical consideration on what is a physical act. I contend it is not arbitrary though, that there is a reason for doing this and doing it with sex in particular. Sex holds the greatest possible physical pleasure that one could get from or give to others. To combine this with what holds the greatest possible mental pleasure one could get or give to others thus makes sex capable of giving one the most possible pleasure one could get/give as a the whole creature that we people are (as in that we have mind and body, not just one or the other just to be specific with what I mean by “whole” here. )

Okay. So sex – the “greatest possible physical pleasure” must be combined with “the greatest possible mental pleasure.” If it is not done that way…

…you would now have lost the capability for experiencing/giving that highest of pleasure for yourself/somebody as a whole person. This would happen because you have disconnected the mental and the physical considerations when it comes to sex and there is no alternative, equally high source of physical pleasure that you could connect the mental pleasure element to in order for it to give as good of an integrated mental and physical experience of pleasure. Treating sex as pretty much just physical is getting some extra physical pleasure in the short run, but in the long run it decreases how much pleasure you are capable of experiencing as a whole person.

It seems to me that masturbation is the height of “treating sex as pretty much just physical” to get “some extra physical pleasure in the short run.” So, I don’t know how it escapes her prognosis of “disconnection” between “the mental and the physical considerations when it comes to sex,” because I think that when we’re talking about masturbation, we’re talking about that (supposed) “disconnection” in its most palpable and obvious way.

Obviously, that’s not what bluecherry thinks is happening, as she continues:

Do you really think that little extra physical pleasure of sex with some random person instead of masturbation is worth that loss?

So she finds an important distinction, but I’m at a loss to grasp it.

[bluecherry]

About the me example: I was just trying in my recent post to explain what I had intended to do at the time by citing myself as an example. At the time I wrote that I wasn’t sure if you meant for the reactions Christy had to apply to everybody who was against casual sex. Since that was not what you intended to do I now know, the me example is moot. I wanted to show that example was moot since you had at one point thought I meant something more broad by using myself as an example and so cited yourself to try to serve as a broad example.

About my comment that the Christy example isn’t helping things progress: The little story about Christy is not an argument but an attempt to clarify your prior arguments. I wasn’t unclear before though on those prior arguments. So, since it was clarified that Christy was not supposed to be how everybody reacts with similar ideas, there is nothing the story helps with.

As for Christy’s reactions being possible, I earlier tried to explain that such a reaction would only be possible if she wasn’t wholly convinced that casual sex was actually damaging. Hypothetically, if you were right that it is a good thing but somebody was really convinced otherwise then they would have negative consequences, yeah, but they would have to be something other than becoming a bitter, jealous hermit.

“Also, I don’t think it would be beneficial to reasonable discussion to try to start probing one another for hidden irrationality or immorality, or make accusations, etc.”

I strongly agree with this.

About the term “dating”: *scratches head* Well, clearly it was used in there then. Maybe it slipped my mind because it seems the use of the term “dating” there is used differently than I typically use it? The original impression I had gotten was that at college she was at most just occasionally hanging out with some guys much the same way she would with any female friend except (since as far as the tale goes there is no indication she is bisexual) sometimes somewhere along the line while hanging out with these guys she has sex with them. It struck me more as a “fuck buddy” situation with Misty and those guys. When I use the term “dating” I always use it as the verb for what people in a romantic relationship are doing with each other.

On death’s door was one option, but I was also trying to say that having one’s capacity for sexual experience looking like it may not last in good condition for much longer was also an option. Basically, if it is a now or never situation that changes things because there is no long term potential for one’s sex life to be considered. There’s nothing to lose by having casual sex in that case and having some kind of sex is better than none ever if those are pretty likely the only options.

About masturbation, I don’t get this “intimacy with self” thing either. I just see masturbation as getting the physical aspect of sex without there being a partner to add any mental considerations. Getting the physical pleasure alone isn’t a bad thing, that isn’t my objection to casual sex. Sex involves another human and unless they are dead/brain dead then you can’t take their body to have sex with without getting their mind too. What kind of mind is one willing to have sex with? Taking and being willing to take minds that don’t exceed a certain threshold is what causes problems in casual sex.

[Eiuol]

Do you “get” that idea?

Just to mention briefly, I was really only making a comment as a tangent in those two quoted sentences, not that it was a crucial point to the rest of my post. The rest of my post is the important stuff. =]

[DonAthos]

About the me example: I was just trying in my recent post to explain what I had intended to do at the time by citing myself as an example. At the time I wrote that I wasn’t sure if you meant for the reactions Christy had to apply to everybody who was against casual sex.

We’re talking about more than casual sex right now, I realize, but is this ever true of fiction? Are a fictional character’s particular reactions meant to “apply to everybody” who shares any of their ideas or attitudes? Christy was also raped (assuming we agree on that, which, given previous discussions, perhaps I shouldn’t take for granted), but I don’t mean to imply that her reaction to that is the reaction that a person raped will have. Do I believe it is a possible reaction? Yes.

Were this a novel length work (or even a novella), I would want to present a more careful study of Christy, insofar as my abilities allow. But as this isn’t even a short story (more a vignette, really), I just wanted to hit highlights, especially as they pertain to the discussion, as that is its raison d’etre.

About my comment that the Christy example isn’t helping things progress: The little story about Christy is not an argument but an attempt to clarify your prior arguments. I wasn’t unclear before though on those prior arguments. So, since it was clarified that Christy was not supposed to be how everybody reacts with similar ideas, there is nothing the story helps with.

What’s more, I think I need to point out that, at heart, this isn’t Christy’s story I’m presenting; it’s Misty’s. Christy’s dramatization isn’t what’s meant to “help” – but my presentation of Misty as “the woman who has casual sex and apparently doesn’t suffer from it.” Which is why I keep asking for your assessment of Misty’s morality and whether (and in what specific fashion) she’s hurting herself, rather than inquiring after Christy. Christy’s role is something like Peter Keating’s in The Fountainhead. Keating is important – he is a foil for Howard Roark, against whom Roark’s character and “fate” stands out more distinctly, and a sometime antagonist, (and I think there’s yet more; I think he has his own subplot) – but The Fountainhead is not about him; it is about Roark.

As for Christy’s reactions being possible, I earlier tried to explain that such a reaction would only be possible if she wasn’t wholly convinced that casual sex was actually damaging. Hypothetically, if you were right that it is a good thing but somebody was really convinced otherwise then they would have negative consequences, yeah, but they would have to be something other than becoming a bitter, jealous hermit.

I don’t know. I think that there is an interplay between people’s consciously held convictions and their subconscious. I think that “cognitive dissonance” can speak to this, and also “evasion.” Let me give you an example of what I mean (assuming such examples are “helpful” ).

I’ve known many quite sincere Christians in my life (or sincere for all I can tell, at least). They talk of “good news,” and the joy of their teachings, and the happiness that God’s love inspires in them, and etc. And yet? I have found that the most sincere tend to have a sort of general… haze of sadness about them. A certain kind of resignation.

Now obviously, I’m not offering “proof” of anything by relating this example to you, let alone with my wishy-washy phrasing. Yet I believe I’m right, I believe I’ve experienced this, and I believe that it has meaning. Consciously, they are convinced that their path is the way to happiness. And yet they do not manage to fool themselves to such a degree (down to their subconscious) that they can evidence this happiness in the manner that others might, that others do.

I think that Christy can be convinced on a conscious level that hers is the right path – the good thing to do, and the road to happiness – and yet wind up bitter, jealous, and unhappy, because somewhere she understands that she’s actually at war with reality… and herself.

About the term “dating”: *scratches head* Well, clearly it was used in there then. Maybe it slipped my mind because it seems the use of the term “dating” there is used differently than I typically use it? The original impression I had gotten was that at college she was at most just occasionally hanging out with some guys much the same way she would with any female friend except (since as far as the tale goes there is no indication she is bisexual)…

LOL. That sounds like a much better story; I’ll bear it in mind for the rewrite!

…sometimes somewhere along the line while hanging out with these guys she has sex with them. It struck me more as a “fuck buddy” situation with Misty and those guys. When I use the term “dating” I always use it as the verb for what people in a romantic relationship are doing with each other.

Here’s what I see her doing by my use of the term “dating”: she goes out on dates. Meaning: she goes to dinners, or to movies, or some similar activity, and spends pre-allotted time with these men, for the purpose of a shared, enjoyable experience.

Certainly this is in the category of “romantic relationship,” though she 1) is not actively seeking a life-partner (or even an exclusive one); and 2) does not consider these men to be life-partner material. Rather, she pursues these dates because they are pleasant of themsleves, for a night or a weekend. She enjoys the dinners, the movies, the company of these men, and the conversations she has with them. She enjoys the fact that they are interested in her, and attracted to her. She is attracted to them, sexually, and her body responds in such manner when they make an advance on her. She approaches all of this “casually,” and quite unlike her sister, who would not date a man (let alone sleep with him), unless she believed him to be life-partner material, no matter how supposedly pleasant the dinner/movie/conversation/sex might promise to be.

On death’s door was one option, but I was also trying to say that having one’s capacity for sexual experience looking like it may not last in good condition for much longer was also an option. Basically, if it is a now or never situation that changes things because there is no long term potential for one’s sex life to be considered. There’s nothing to lose by having casual sex in that case and having some kind of sex is better than none ever if those are pretty likely the only options.

I know this isn’t what you mean, or what you’re talking about, but it is what I mean, and what I’d like to talk about:

It’s always “a now or never situation.” The sexual experiences and romantic relationships I had in college, and elsewhere, would not have come again had I not pursued them at the time. Misty does not wind up with Wesley in the end – she only had that time to explore her relationship with him, and to have those specific, particular experiences. Had she opted not to, as Christy would have done (for after all, Wesley is no John Galt), then her life would have been the poorer for it.

I believe I’ve expressed how much I love my wife, but if I have, I don’t mind doing it again; I love her so incredibly much. And yet? I wouldn’t strike any of my prior relationships with other women from my history. All of them have enriched my life, and contributed to who I am today. I don’t expect that everyone can or would say that – if you’ve slept with Supermodel Stalin, that’s not apt to have enriched your life – but I did endeavor only to sleep with those women who were of value to me, if not “highest value.”

"There are places I remember, all my life, though some have changed. Some forever, not for better. Some have gone and some remain. All these places had their moments with lovers and friends I still can recall. Some are dead and some are living. In my life, I’ve loved them all.

“But of all these friends and lovers, there is no one compares with you. And these memories lose their meaning when I think of love as something new. Though I know I’ll never lose affection for people and things that went before – I know I’ll often stop and think about them – in my life, I love you more.”

About masturbation, I don’t get this “intimacy with self” thing either. I just see masturbation as getting the physical aspect of sex without there being a partner to add any mental considerations. Getting the physical pleasure alone isn’t a bad thing, that isn’t my objection to casual sex. Sex involves another human and unless they are dead/brain dead then you can’t take their body to have sex with without getting their mind too. What kind of mind is one willing to have sex with? Taking and being willing to take minds that don’t exceed a certain threshold is what causes problems in casual sex.

I think there might be value in taking issue with the idea of having sex “with a mind,” but yes – a person is a body and mind, too, and if you’re sleeping with someone, you’re sleeping with all of them. Granted.

And you and I would be united in objecting to “indiscriminate sex” or “sex with an awful person,” like Supermodel Stalin.

But what about sex with a great person, who is not the greatest (or, dare I ask, a good person who is not great)? That’s what Misty does, after all. She has sex with intelligent, good-looking men to whom she is attracted, but of whom she does not consider the best, or reflective of her “highest values”; her “threshold” for sexual intercourse is lower than that. Her sister Christy’s “threshold” is “John-Galt-or-bust,” and she goes through college without meeting a John Galt (and her twenties, and her thirties, and part-way through her forties). Without going so far as to say, “that’s wrong of Christy,” upon what grounds does Christy pronounce Misty’s “casual” attitude improper?

Just to mention briefly, I was really only making a comment as a tangent in those two quoted sentences, not that it was a crucial point to the rest of my post. The rest of my post is the important stuff. =]

LOL. Oh, I know, I know. But I don’t have much issue to take with “the important stuff,” I don’t believe. I think that experience is important, though it remains that such experience is not my grounds for defending causal sex, which I hold defensible on its own merits – good sex with a good-looking, good person is… what’s the word…? …good.

[bluecherry]

When I first read that thing about Christy I just had skipped right to reading that part since my focus was on replying to somebody else who had referenced the Christy/Misty stuff. I didn’t know exactly what the point of the stories was at the time and so that showed in my post, but now I’m more aware. The whole thing I wrote in response to that can be thrown out. Moving along now . . .

“I think that there is an interplay between people’s consciously held convictions and their subconscious.”

Agreed. But that means you have to not be completely convinced. You subconsciously think your claims are wrong. With no subconscious conflict those particular reactions can’t happen. (Dang it, I wanted to move along from discussing these two girls. ;^; )

“she goes to dinners, or to movies, or some similar activity, and spends pre-allotted time with these men, for the purpose of a shared, enjoyable experience.”

That sounds like stuff people do with their friends all the time with no romantic element involved.

Can I request that the conversation be continued with no reference to Christy or Misty or Sandra or Stalin or me or you or any other specific people for a little while? These examples are meant to help clarify things, but instead I think particulars of these cases are getting too easy to get bogged down in and have disputes over.

[DonAthos]

“I think that there is an interplay between people’s consciously held convictions and their subconscious.”

Agreed. But that means you have to not be completely convinced. You subconsciously think your claims are wrong. With no subconscious conflict those particular reactions can’t happen.

We may have to temporarily “agree to disagree” on the nature of “conviction” or “being convinced.” I think that “being convinced” of something means to hold it as the truth consciously and explicitly, but it does not necessarily speak to a complete integration of one’s subconscious mind. (And actually, I would hold that no one could ever be completely convinced of an irrational idea in the manner you suggest – their subconscious will always be picking up on the disparity between their consciously-held beliefs and the information that they must evade in order to preserve those irrational beliefs against reality; in fact, it is only this that makes “evasion” possible.)

“she goes to dinners, or to movies, or some similar activity, and spends pre-allotted time with these men, for the purpose of a shared, enjoyable experience.”

That sounds like stuff people do with their friends all the time with no romantic element involved.

Of course it does. Perhaps you have something else in mind, but I find that romance is much like a friendship, and predicated on many-to-most of the same values. And a great friendship is much like any other deep love, such as my life-long love for my best friend, or Samwise Gamgee’s love for Frodo. The telling difference between friendship and romantic relations is a mutual interest in sexuality; i.e. shared “physical” attraction (or attraction that expresses itself physically, at least). Or, perhaps we could suppose a “chaste romance” a la the previously mentioned Don Quixote, who loved his women “pure and chaste from afar,” but that’s one element of his character that I don’t find inspiring… and if I had to lay money, I’d bet it has its roots in a mind/body split.

People who date, and are dating, often proceed in the manner I’ve suggested: they go to dinner and a movie and then they have sex. What they share and express is something like friendship commingled with physical attraction. What, apart from this, do you suppose a “date” looks like?

Can I request that the conversation be continued with no reference to Christy or Misty or Sandra or Stalin or me or you or any other specific people for a little while? These examples are meant to help clarify things, but instead I think particulars of these cases are getting too easy to get bogged down in and have disputes over.

Of course. I’m happy to proceed as you wish (though disappointed that, despite my repeated entreaties, you won’t specify the damage Misty has done to her life through her approach to sex, though you have pronounced her actions improper). I am afraid that an abstract discussion without reference to examples may be rather… “dangerous” in that it might become untethered to reality. But okay. Here’s a general, abstract case:

Sex feels good. Sex with good people is a pleasant experience. It is discriminatory. It is a response to values. But it need not therefore be a response to one’s “highest values.” It can take place without causing self-harm, without doing damage to one’s psyche, without destroying the possibility for other, better relationships, or without otherwise sacrificing one’s higher values, or one’s life.

Because of this, having such sex is not improper, but in the context provided above, can be “good.”

[bluecherry]

On dates/dating: “The telling difference between friendship and romantic relations is a mutual interest in sexuality; i.e. shared “physical” attraction (or attraction that expresses itself physically, at least).”

Romance is of a different nature than just “friendship + physical appeal.” If your parenthetical is meant to address that, ok then, but I’m not sure if that is what you mean. Generally though, I explained what I mean by “dating” earlier, but I must say, I’ve never really had a good idea of how to define a date in a way that doesn’t get ambiguous about when it is a “date-date” versus when it is just a “date” as in a scheduled joint activity. Not so important to the overall topic though . . . More important to the discussion, I think the overall picture here has been getting tangled up to me along the way. I think I’ve been losing track of what the point is of some things we’re talking about and what direction things are headed. @_@ A review may be in order.

“Sex with good people is a pleasant experience.”

That’s a pretty big jump. Somebody can be a good person but still not somebody you like being around. It isn’t a given that just because somebody is moral will mean sex with them will be a positive experience.

[Eiuol]

Were this a novel length work (or even a novella)

You sure had me fooled; your posts are as long as novels! :smartass:

I am getting tangled up as well at just what the direction of discussion is. As I see it, the main points are: (1) a concrete example is needed to add some context, so DonAthos wants to project more on supposed negative consequences of casual sex, (2) at least on my end, I think it is important to address how one can validate ideas on sex; some notion of casual sex seems acceptable, (3) sex is of course plenty pleasurable anyway, so if there are opportunities for sex with people who are quite good people that might not be romantic companions, it should be pursued.

All those points are generally independent. The goal of discussion seems to be getting at what kind of negative effects casual sex has. On the far end of the value spectrum, there are likely not-so-good people who may only be a night of fun, which is pretty well established as bad for strongly divorcing mind and body. This does not seem to be quite the consequence of at least generally valuable/good people.