Something I really don’t understand:
-to most objectivists, masturbating is not immoral
-to most objectivists, using someone for sex is immoral
My viewpoint: Using someone for sex is not immoral so long as both know about it. Using someone for sex is a lot like masturbation.
My viewpoint: Using someone for sex is not immoral so long as both know about it. Using someone for sex is a lot like masturbation.
Well, it would be the same if not for the tiny difference that there is another human being involved in one of the two scenarios. The only way to masturbate using a person that I can see is to pretend they are not actually a person. I think it has to involve an evasion at some point.
Why is it an evasion? If you want to have a purely sexual relationship with someone, as long as the other person is aware of your intentions, then what’s wrong with it? Especially if the other person, like you, is just looking for a way to get off. If one party is in it for the sex, while knowing that the other party wants a deeper emotional/psychological connection, that’s obviously wrong. But if both parties just want sex…I just can’t see the problem.
[Mods: Split into a separate thread?]
Something I really don’t understand:
-to most objectivists, masturbating is not immoral
-to most objectivists, using someone for sex is immoral
My viewpoint: Using someone for sex is not immoral so long as both know about it. Using someone for sex is a lot like masturbation.
What specifically do you mean by using in this context?
Doesn’t sex always involve some sort of “using” of another person?
Especially if the other person, like you, is just looking for a way to get off.
If you just want to “get off” — i.e., have an orgasm without a spiritual connection — why can’t you do that by yourself? Why bring another person into the picture?
If you just want to “get off” — i.e., have an orgasm without a spiritual connection — why can’t you do that by yourself? Why bring another person into the picture?
Because a woman’s body feels much better than my right hand.
Because a woman’s body feels much better than my right hand.
How so? It’s all just flesh and lubrication, isn’t it?
In the interests of avoiding being overly graphic, I’ll just say that I don’t think it’s quite that simple. Your hand lubed up with K-Y Jelly isn’t going to feel the same as a woman’s genitals.
Then you have to consider the fact that sex involves more than just genital contact. Sex in which you don’t involve the rest of your body (or your lover doesn’t involve the rest of hers) would be very unsatisfying.
In the interests of avoiding being overly graphic, I’ll just say that I don’t think it’s quite that simple. Your hand lubed up with K-Y Jelly isn’t going to feel the same as a woman’s genitals.
I agree that it isn’t simple, and that sex involves much more than the mere contact of genitals. My question is why: why does having sex with a partner not feel the same as doing it all by yourself?
Are the reasons only physical?
Please be as graphic as necessary to make clear your position.
I see where Kevin is going with this so I will hold off.
Here, again, for emphasis:
If you just want to “get off” — i.e., have an orgasm without a spiritual connection — why can’t you do that by yourself? Why bring another person into the picture?
If you find the answer to that, then you have the answer to your question.
I agree that it isn’t simple, and that sex involves much more than the mere contact of genitals. My question is why: why does having sex with a partner not feel the same as doing it all by yourself?
Are the reasons only physical?
Please be as graphic as necessary to make clear your position.
It can be for purely physical reasons, but does not have to be. Naturally, sex with someone you love is better than masturbation for reasons other than, but also including, purely physical ones. But sex with another human being, with emotions detached, will pretty much always be better than masturbation, for purely physical reasons.
Why is sex physically better than masturbation when both acheive the same result? Imagine the difference between eating Haagen Daas ice cream as opposed to the generic Kroger brand. Both are essentially the same thing and both have the same result of satisfying your craving for sweets. But you cannot explain to someone why Haagen Daas is better, without saying something like “it just tastes better.” The only way for someone to find out why it’s better is to experience it.
Same thing with sex. If you haven’t experienced it (I don’t know if you have or not but, if not, that’s nothing to be ashamed of) then it’s practically impossible for someone to explain to you why it is physically better than masturbation. Yes, your hand is made of flesh and you can use lubrication if you like, much like a woman’s vagina is essentially flesh and lubrication. Likewise, a bowl of Haagen Daas will be made of the same ingredients, including choclate syrup if you wish, as the generic brand. But, in each case, I don’t think anyone could experience both and not come to the conclusion that one is way better than the other.
Moose,
You’re wrong. There is no purely physical reason why sex is better than masturbation. Think on this; on what is meant by purely physical, and what other values may be present, if not physical ones. What realm are these other values, if not physical?
ex with another human being, with emotions detached, will pretty much always be better than masturbation, for purely physical reasons.
This is quite the extraordinary statement. You mean that if I choose to have sex with a prostitute, or some random stranger I pick up off the street — that is, someone with whom I share no important spiritual values, and with whom I can engage in a totally empty sexual experience, devoid of any (positive) emotional meaning for either of us — that this will “pretty much always” be preferable to going it solo in the privacy of my own bedroom?
My goodness . . . and here I thought there were perfectly good reasons why a person would not want to engage in behavior of that kind!
If two consenting adults value each other enough, then there is nothing immoral about sex for the sake of release. Ayn Rand said it herself that sex is a powerful instinctual urge that is important to a man.
The problem however is disease. In today’s world, casual sex is no longer an option. I would definitely need to see some bloodtest results first, otherwise I would rather engage in auto-eroticism than put on a condom and engage in mediocre sex, and mediocre sex it would be.
If two consenting adults value each other enough, then there is nothing immoral about sex for the sake of release.
The problem is that the question on the table is about when two people don’t value each other at all, i.e. when each party simple uses the other as a physical tool. What are you being released from?
If two consenting adults value each other enough, then there is nothing immoral about sex for the sake of release. Ayn Rand said it herself that sex is a powerful instinctual urge that is important to a man.
Can you provide a source where Ayn Rand used the word “instinctual”?
This is quite the extraordinary statement. You mean that if I choose to have sex with a prostitute, …
I think the important distinction to be made here is that for Moose (and perhaps some other folks), the physical experience of sex involving a vagina feels better than sex involving his own hand. For you, your hand may be preferable to the vagina of a woman with which you have no emotional connection.
Despite whatever value or moral implications may be involved, I find it extraordinary that one could not tell any physical difference between a hand and a vagina.
Well, it would be the same if not for the tiny difference that there is another human being involved in one of the two scenarios. The only way to masturbate using a person that I can see is to pretend they are not actually a person. I think it has to involve an evasion at some point.
Maarten is taking the words out of my mouth.
You cannot deal with an object or animal without considering all of it’s properties:
You cannot grow a cow for meat and feed it with poison, or not provide for it’s other needs, that are dictated by it’s nature.
You cannot use a saw in water, while ignoring the fact that it’s made out of metal and will rust in water.
You cannot use a human being as you would use some physical object, ignoring all of his/her other properties and expect no damage (both to yourself and to him/her).
Ayn Rand said that one needs to treat human beings according to one’s judgement of their value: To treat them with respect when one judges them to be worthy of it, to buy gifts to someone one loves (or show affection), to treat with contempt someone who one judges to be bad or worthless, etc’.
Judging other’s character is esential for man’s survival.
Learning about the nature of physical objects is important, everyone would agree on it. Well why would taking the time to recognize other people’s nature be any different? In fact since each of us rely on other people for our survival, and the physical objects we use in our everyday life are only a product of man, it should be even more important to recognize the nature of people around us.
When you are dealing with someone: it is very important for one to be able to know if that person is trust-worthy, or if he’s likely to sell you damaged goods and disappear. It is also important for choosing one’s friends: Making sure your friend is not a liar, or some sort of an emotionally-indecisive looney is important for one’s future happiness.
Ayn Rand stressed the significance of rewarding the good and punishing the evil.
Well what can be more of a sanction than having sex with someone? Sex is the most intimet experience one can have with another person. If one considers oneself to be good, then allowing access to one’s most intimet body parts has to be granted only to those who are worthy of it. Giving value to those who do not deserve it is something despicable for a man of self esteem.
A man of self esteem will not allow those who do not deserve something to have it, and especially to get it from them.
So if you don’t see anything wrong with sex with a stranger, you should also not see anything wrong with letting a thief get away with you’re neighbor’s property: both are a form of allowing someone unworthy to take something unearned.
Why is it an evasion? If you want to have a purely sexual relationship with someone, as long as the other person is aware of your intentions, then what’s wrong with it?
There are different level of “immoral” here. If two people enjoy a sado-maso relationship, no one right has been violated when they engage in it, no frawd is involved, and the law should protect their right to engage in this relationship.
But on the personal level, they are immoral because they are acting against their well being.
** Sorry for any spelling mistakes that my text may contain, don’t have time for it now…
I think the important distinction to be made here is that for Moose (and perhaps some other folks), the physical experience of sex involving a vagina feels better than sex involving his own hand. For you, your hand may be preferable to the vagina of a woman with which you have no emotional connection.
Despite whatever value or moral implications may be involved, I find it extraordinary that one could not tell any physical difference between a hand and a vagina.
This is exactly what I’m saying. Inspector and Kevin still seem to be attaching some kind of psychological baggage to my statements. All I’m saying is that real sex feels physically better than masturbation. Moral and financial consequences aside, sex with a prostitute will still feel physically better than masturbation. I don’t really understand why that’s such a controversial statement.
This is quite the extraordinary statement. You mean that if I choose to have sex with a prostitute, or some random stranger I pick up off the street ?#8221; that is, someone with whom I share no important spiritual values, and with whom I can engage in a totally empty sexual experience, devoid of any (positive) emotional meaning for either of us ?#8221; that this will “pretty much always” be preferable to going it solo in the privacy of my own bedroom?
My goodness . . . and here I thought there were perfectly good reasons why a person would not want to engage in behavior of that kind!
I think I misworded that. I didn’t mean it would be an all-around better experience. I certainly would not condone such a lifestyle. My point was that it would feel better on a purely physical level.
So if you don’t see anything wrong with sex with a stranger, you should also not see anything wrong with letting a thief get away with you’re neighbor’s property: both are a form of allowing someone unworthy to take something unearned.
Surely you aren’t comparing sex between consenting adults to forcible taking of property.
There are different level of “immoral” here. If two people enjoy a sado-maso relationship, no one right has been violated when they engage in it, no frawd is involved, and the law should protect their right to engage in this relationship.
But on the personal level, they are immoral because they are acting against their well being.
It’s not just about whether or not force was involved. I see no reason to suppose that emotionally-detached sex, for the sake of sexual release, is damaging to one’s well-being. I daresay that a lot of sex-deprived people (particularly a lot of repressed religious people) would be a lot more psychologically healthy if a supermodel came into their bedroom one night and gave them the ride of a lifetime.
All I’m saying is that real sex feels physically better than masturbation.
But this is wrong. Physically, the stimulation is the same. It might feel different (better) but this is not because of physical factors.