Sex and OPAR

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Paul,

The part from those Farmers that caused an attitude of obscenity is not the part that made these people such hard workers. I attribute it to their belief that sex for enjoyment is bad and that I am my brother's keeper (to keep him from sinning, thus losing his immortal soul to hell). Both of these ideas in conjunction cause guilt and viciousness.

Unfortunately, these bad ideas are still with us as a cultural background today, although healthy individualism is growing.

Michael

[Paul Mawdsley]

Paul,

The part from those Farmers that caused an attitude of obscenity is not the part that made these people such hard workers. I attribute it to their belief that sex for enjoyment is bad and that I am my brother's keeper (to keep him from sinning, thus losing his immortal soul to hell). Both of these ideas in conjunction cause guilt and viciousness.

Michael,

Yes. The orientation is the same but the specific part of the ethical code is different. It is an ethical code built on power, control, and hierarchy that also values hard work. Sex is a most powerful drive and guilt is a most powerful tool of manipulation.

Unfortunately, these bad ideas are still with us as a cultural background today, although healthy individualism is growing.

I agree. We still have a long way to go.

Paul

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael, please, you ought to be careful: If you make such a big stink about Ortho-types in a post addressed to me, people will associate these Ortho-creatures with me--even subconsciously. Then ANYTHING I say will be nothing more than an Ortho rant, and what I actually do have to say will not be heard.

Victor,

Oh, stop it. OL readers are not retards. Reread my post and see if any personal slight is really present (unless "subconsciously" to sensitive artists).

What I argue against is rhetoric like the following: "As I argued already, no civilized man, and no savage, is satisfied in the mere sex act."

Really? In all cases at all times? This statement is badly in need of qualification. Also, as it stands, it reads like you are holding your nose from the stench when you say "satisfied in the mere sex act." That may not be your intent, but that's the way it reads.

My whole point so far has been to highlight that this "mere sex act" is THE GOOD that we build on by adding reason and other values, not THE BAD we try to correct in human beings with ethics. I am discussing an emotional premise. And if it is good, it is good all by itself.

Incidentally, there happen to be many people who hold themselves to an impossible and contradictory standard as in my "caricature." There are even some documented cases of suicide arising precisely from a person swallowing Objectivism as dogma and feeling unworthy. That's a booby-trap that needs to be highlighted so it can be avoided in those who are learning. Is this inherent in Objectivism? That's a loaded question if I ever heard one. The booby-trap exists for the less careful and there is nothing wrong with bringing it to their awareness. That doesn't make the philosophy defective, but the booby-trap is still there. And it is a happiness killer is there ever was one.

It is high time to let go of the guilt. It is perfectly possible to be a hero and have fun becoming one. (This is the person I have seen people vehemently hate from envy.) It is also possible to become a hero with excruciating effort, self-denial and self-condemnation, but that is not necessary as a condition. Likewise, it is possible to find a highest value in another person, be faithful to her and feel fully realized on all levels without condemning as somehow defective all past relationships and sexual experiences that were more superficial. They were all good. It's just that the loving mate is so much better. And if she should become permanently lost, that lesser good will become important once again after the grieving.

Michael

[sjw]

What I argue against is rhetoric like the following: "As I argued already, no civilized man, and no savage, is satisfied in the mere sex act."

Really? In all cases at all times? This statement is badly in need of qualification. Also, as it stands, it reads like you are holding your nose from the stench when you say "satisfied in the mere sex act." That may not be your intent, but that's the way it reads.

That is not the way it reads if you read it rather than read into it. If you read it, it just says that the mere sex act divorced from all the other things Victor has been advocating will leave the person wanting those very things. I don't see how you got what you did out of it.

[Ellen Stuttle]

North American culture has been profoundly influenced by this orientation with Christian ideas.

I'd say specifically Protestant ideas of a flinty New England kind. I live in an area from which that stern uprightness emanated and, it always seems to me, can still be felt as a kind of presence exuding from the colonial architecture (as well as from attitudes that remain, especially in descendants of old New England families). At town center in Bloomfield there's a Congregational church, beautifully proportioned in its stark simplicity, the inside austere with wooden pews. That church isn't one of the oldest around here. It was built in 1858 -- there's a large sign in front which gives the date; I frequently think when I walk past that church, which I often do, that it was founded the year before Origin of Species was published. The church, back when it was built, would have been the central beacon, the focal point of the community, visible from the farmlands around. There's another such church, prominent on a small knoll, in the adjoining community of Simsbury. The Simsbury church, again a stark though beautiful in its plainness Congregational church, can be seen even today from a wider area than the one at Bloomfield Center. Such churches, and all they represent, set a tone in this part of the country.

Ellen

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

That is not the way it reads if you read it rather than read into it. If you read it, it just says that the mere sex act divorced from all the other things Victor has been advocating will leave the person wanting those very things. I don't see how you got what you did out of it.

Shayne,

I fear you will never be a poet. But here goes anyway. Here is Victor's statement:

"As I argued already, no civilized man, and no savage, is satisfied in the mere sex act."

I was discussing the rhetorical message that accompanies a statement of fact (or statement of opinion presented as fact, as in this case). OK, I overstated my impression a bit, but not too much, really. Here are three obvious points that clearly communicate a negative message:

1. Victor's statement could easily be construed to mean that sex in itself did not satisfy, not that a person has a desire for other elements to be added. This is due to imprecision of word use, but there is more. (btw - Even your own phrase "leave the person wanting" implies that this is always the case for each and every instance, i.e., sex by itself is somehow futile and deficient for human beings.)

2. By starting the meat of the phrase in a context of clearly disapproving of sex practiced solely as sex (see his preceding comments where he grudgingly admits it is good) with "no civilized man," there is an emotional appeal to the authority of culture ("civilized" culture at that) to reinforce his disapproval. This rings strongly as disapproval of sex-qua-sex, with the implication that there can only be approval of it if it is somehow purified or sanitized--through ethics--of its inherent inability to satisfy human beings. Adding "and no savage" does not undo this impression. It actually throws in a visual image of some sort of primitivism, even though the grammatical meaning is for it to be inclusive, not negative. Such a strong impression of disapproval would not have existed if he had said, for instance, "As I argued already, no man is satisfied in the mere sex act." A mildly negative message still would have remained by the context, but it would not have been honking like the original one was. I suspect that he wanted to emphasize the disapproval without stating it outright, but that is speculation on my part. The fact is that he did. (And he is an artist, so he knows about these things.)

3. I became curious to know just how Victor knows what sexually satisfies all savages--or even all civilized men for that matter. (In this context, I take this to include women.) I won't even go into the fact that he would have to be omniscient and timeless to know that. But it is obvious that with the voluntary expansion of the porno industry and prostitution throughout the world (and the fact that both have been with mankind ever since recorded time), sex-qua-sex has satisfied and continues to satisfy a hell of a lot of people. That's a fact that is easily observable. So by simply ignoring such a glaring reality in making a sweeping statement to include "all"), the implication is that he disapproves of sex-qua-sex--and that he thinks those people who are satisfied are somehow wrong, deluded, immoral or whatever.

There is more, but hopefully that should get the juices flowing for understanding rhetorical messages.

That is how I came to my conclusion.

Michael

[Judith]

What I argue against is rhetoric like the following: "As I argued already, no civilized man, and no savage, is satisfied in the mere sex act."

Really? In all cases at all times? This statement is badly in need of qualification. Also, as it stands, it reads like you are holding your nose from the stench when you say "satisfied in the mere sex act." That may not be your intent, but that's the way it reads.

That is not the way it reads if you read it rather than read into it. If you read it, it just says that the mere sex act divorced from all the other things Victor has been advocating will leave the person wanting those very things. I don't see how you got what you did out of it.

I agree.

[Judith]

The part from those Farmers that caused an attitude of obscenity is not the part that made these people such hard workers. I attribute it to their belief that sex for enjoyment is bad and that I am my brother's keeper (to keep him from sinning, thus losing his immortal soul to hell). Both of these ideas in conjunction cause guilt and viciousness.

Unfortunately, these bad ideas are still with us as a cultural background today, although healthy individualism is growing.

I've always assumed that lewdness and raunchiness (as opposed to clean, healthy enjoyment of sex) came from the attitude that sex is dirty and to be suppressed, and that now we're breaking free from those restrictions and enjoying ourselves, but we still buy into the idea that it's dirty. So we're having fun doing something wrong. The conflict leads to the "badness" of raunchiness or lewdness.

Judith

[Jonathan]

I would also like to recommend to everyone here, both "hunters" and "farmers" and all combinations thereof, a particular movie which I love and which is maybe in some sort of borderland between "hunter" and "farmer": "E tu Mama, Tambien?"

Cheers,

Ellen

I've only seen the last half of it, but I thought it was a beautiful film.

J

[Wolf DeVoon]

“What’s happening to me?” Ayn would say. “You’re turning me into an animal.”

This is on target. I'm a bit hesitant to say what I know on this subject.

W.

[Ellen Stuttle]

I would also like to recommend to everyone here, both "hunters" and "farmers" and all combinations thereof, a particular movie which I love and which is maybe in some sort of borderland between "hunter" and "farmer": "E tu Mama, Tambien?"

Cheers,

Ellen

I've only seen the last half of it, but I thought it was a beautiful film.

J

You saw the scene where she turns from the jukebox?

Deity incarnate.

E-

___

[John Dailey]

~ This subject, clearly, should be being discussed amongst all within Hefner's (downstairs) living room with it's open-bar. --- Wonder what *his* Pepsi-filled 2-cents'd be?

~ I think that too many have confused the idea of casual sex with pretend sex. To 'define my terms'...

~ By the former I mean, well, just what the term is: momentary-encounters where each is 'attracted' to the other for the pure sake of enjoying the moment/week/howeverlong, for merely their being together with no 'expectations' re the other re their 'future.' We're talking a moment-by-moment 'thing', and if one leaves, no regrets/recriminations by the other. "Hey, it was great; catcha later...another time, another life."

To be sure, such a situation CAN result in 'love'...by one for the other (assuming more than a 'moment' occurred and they did, well, other things.) But, that's a little-mentioned 'risk' re casual sex, since...there was presumably NO expectation/desire for a love from the other (ergo, 'mutual' love.)

LLAP

J:D

[John Dailey]

Addendum:

~ THEN, there's the latter, a whole different story. You 'pay' for the other to pretend. Anyone see Carnal Knowledge? Think of Jack Nicholson with Rita Moreno at the end. Or The Mechanic with Charles Bronson and one whom one thought was his 'significant other', until she strayed from his script...and she was then shown to have been paid to NOT stray from it. Here one's talking about using others as 'blow-up' dolls (be they high-priced and intelligent 'geisha' type call-girls or mere street-walkers.)

~ 'Morally', the former should be given some leeway. The latter is the real prob re one short-changing one's self.

LLAP

J:D

Edited January 4, 2007 by John Dailey

[John Dailey]

~ Enjoying casual sex is one thing; enjoying pretend sexual-attraction-by-another is...an other...thing. The latter is where one 'turns off one's mind.' The latter is where one 'turns off one's consciousness.' The latter is where one pretends...to one's self...that one DID NOT pay the other to pretend that they're attracted to the payer. The latter is using a live human as a mere masturbatory (lottsa 'pretend' there, no?) 'blow-up' doll, where one is definitely short-changing one's self.

It's the 'pretending' that absolutely requires that one purposefully 'evade' the knowldedge that one 'paid' that hot bod to act as if s/he's really attracted to l'il ol' *you.* THIS is what 'turning off one's consciousness' means in O'-ist parlance.

~ A-n-d, if one can (should I add 'continually' or 'frequently'?) do that, what else can one...'pretend' about?

LLAP

J:D

[John Dailey]

~ To be sure, there is clearly a Puritanical streak in many "O-ist" self-styled supporters where they confuse the two I've delineated because both fall under NON-'ideal'. I'm all for bottom-line 'black-white' conclusions, but even 'grey' has relevent shades to distinguish (which 'blacker', which 'whiter'?) Some 'O'ists' seem too myopic to regard this area as of worth concern. 'Contrary' ones seem to prefer to dwell therein and ignore the questions.

~ Most of the myopic ones are mainly the UN-'official' ones, I'd say. The contrary criticizers of them lay this Puritanical prob at Rand's feet. I don't. I lay it at both of THEIR feet (or, maybe, a bit higher up.) Rand shouldn't be blamed for what her 'promoters' advocate, if she never advocated what they do...any more than Jesus should be blamed for Pat Robertson, Ralph Reed or Jerry Springer...er...Falwell.

LLAP

J:D

Edited January 4, 2007 by John Dailey

[John Dailey]

My FINAL 'Addendum'...on this casual sex concern:

~ Not to be confused with my aforesaid re 'paid/pretend' sex-interactions!

~ Hugh Hefner (need I spell out who he is?) in one of his 'interview-clips' on one of the varied TV-gossip shows, fairly 'justified' his POV of casually-bedding another. I'm paraphrasing here (not remembering accurately, and unable to access the exact 'quote') his POV: --> "I really don't see a need to know what she thinks of me if and when she wishes to get into bed with me. I don't need to get into her head to know how much she's concerned with trying to get into mine."

~ I must say: "Fascinating."

LLAP

J:D

[Victor Pross]

Michael,

I’m glad that two friends can differ without resort to insults, but instead employ rhetoric.

The reason why I included the word “savage” was for the sake of emphasis and not necessarily rhetoric—although that’s not to say I’m above using a rhetorical procedure in arguments. This is not a bad thing.

I included “savage” to accentuate the fact that it is not just “modern industrial man” or civilized man who seeks out what I have been emphasizing but that it pertains to all human beings—even savages. It is this universality that I was trying to emphasize. If one studies anthropology, it will be learned that ancients and savages have their mating rituals too, however very different from our own. They simply did not fornicate with the nearest person [or thing] when the sex drive was aroused. The point here is that man has chosen to guide his actions by some code--rationally or irrationally—and this includes the sexual realm as well. They have done this from recorded history--before. I trust that the study of anthropology does not require omniscience.

As for my alleged disapproval of “sex-qua-sex—unless purified or sanitized through ethics” and also of its inherent inability to satisfy human beings, I am merely recognizing certain facts: all of human history is that of man adopting an ethical code—rational or irrational—and this no less includes his sex life. This, too, is an anthropological fact. So I am not "sanitizing" mankind’s sex drive through ethics. It is mankind itself that has done it. Sex cannot dispense with an ethic, any more it can any other branch of human activity.

What I am doing, however--this man--is recognizing and adopting a rational code of ethics and applying it to my life—in all of its departments: work, play, love and sexual. Hey, it seems to me that you are doing the same thing, and so I am at a lost to understand why you would adopt “my” code when we are seemingly divided on this subject.

As for your contention that I disapprove of sex-qua-sex and that I think people who are 'satisfied' by it are somehow wrong, deluded, immoral, etc, does not do my position justice. Really, it depends on the context, doesn’t it? What are these people doing? But I would ask what you mean by “satisfaction.” Michael, of course people are “satisfied” by sex-qua-sex---physically. So what? I have said that the physical hunger is appeased -- for the moment, but the mental hunger remains unabated, and no profound human satisfaction can be obtained. So they are not satisfied, not in the manner that they ultimately wish to be satisfied. Man is the rational animal, he has a conceptual faculty, and as such he requires philosophy, art, love, companionship, etc. It is not I who decrees this, it is the nature of a human being. I don’t know why you find this debatable.

So to repeat:

No civilized man, and no savage, is satisfied in the mere sex act. If the “impulse” which leads to the act is to be satisfied, there must be courtship, there must be love, there must be companionship. Without these, while the physical hunger may be appeased for the moment, the mental hunger remains unabated, and no profound human satisfaction can be obtained. This is what living the life of a human being means, the life of a rational human being, but not for duty's sake. This is what people strive for, and it is proper--in the long run.

Finally, do I find the sex drive or sex-qua-sex repulsive or deplorable? The sex-drive...deplorable? No, how can I? Why should I? It is a metaphysically given fact. A moral code, however, is the volitionally adopted—not the commanded.

-Victor-

ps: Michael, you said: ..."it is possible to find a highest value in another person, be faithful to her and feel fully realized on all levels without condemning as somehow defective all past relationships and sexual experiences that were more superficial."

I must also stress that I don’t think that people whose sexual past is splashed with casual encounters are on the cliff side of hell’s moral infernal. I am not approaching this subject all or nothing and thundering moral judgments. I am merely speaking of one’s overall life and how they approach it and what is in their rational self-interest as judged contextually, hierarchically and in the long run. A few traffic tickets does not make one a lousy driver and few “casual encounters” does not make one an immoral human being—it does not even put one on the edge of being immoral. Really, it depends. There are so many variables and the total context of one’s life is to be evaluated—especially by the person who has to live that life.

**

Edited January 4, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Victor Pross]

I've always assumed that lewdness and raunchiness (as opposed to clean, healthy enjoyment of sex) came from the attitude that sex is dirty and to be suppressed, and that now we're breaking free from those restrictions and enjoying ourselves, but we still buy into the idea that it's dirty. So we're having fun doing something wrong. The conflict leads to the "badness" of raunchiness or lewdness.

Judith,

I have heard of men who could not have sexual relations with women whom they respected, who lived platonically—practically—with their wives, whom they loved, and had trivial affairs with woman whom they despised. All this springs from the attitude that sex is dirty. It also comes from the beliefs that love and sex are opposites. This is hardly an integration of mind and body. Such men are truly divided, conflicted in a very deep way. This is, of course, but one example of what I have been speaking about as being a deplorable state to be in. It is not good to be romantically in love with a person, and not desire them physically. It is also not a good state to desire someone sexually that you despise. But you do find this to be the reality of certain people. It's too bad, really.

-Victor-

Edited January 4, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Paul Mawdsley]

I have a thought. Is it possible that people with different psychological orientations might have a different relation to their rational systems of thought and process the meaning of sexual experience, or any experience, differently? As with the Bohr/Einstein debates, this might mean disagreements arise due to differences in psychological/epistemological orientations. What needs to be questioned is the nature of these orientations and their differences. How does Michael's philosophy fit into the dynamic flow of his consciousness? How does Judith's philosophy fit into her dynamic flow of consciousness? How and why do their differences lead to an inability to create a shared context on the subject of appropriate sexuality?

Can you elaborate? I don't know enough about these subjects to follow you. Do you mean what you said about Hunter versus Farmer, or is there more to it than that?

Judith,

It is a big subject. I was thankful to think of Michael's story because I have been trying to think of a way to express what I was seeing without writing an essay. I was trying to grasp your and Victor's point of view by empathically sinking into it when I realized I was seeing things I had written about before. The problem is my images and my language can be a little quirky and I often wonder if I really communicate what I see effectively. As I sank deeper into your point of view, I realized I was seeing Michael's Farmer operating in my psyche. I knew Michael, Ellen, and I were coming at this more from the perspective of the Hunter, or a Farmer who had more integrated the Hunter. I am not strong with symbols and metaphor. I was happy to borrow from Michael's strengths.

What I said about the Hunter and the Farmer, I think, conveys the essence of what I have been seeing. Ideally, we should each have a well developed Hunter and Farmer within, both of which integrate the perspective of the other. The Hunters ethical principles should generate actions that fit with the Farmer's ethical structures. The Farmer's ethical structures should be based on a view of human nature that captures the spirit of the Hunter. As it stands, I don't think Objectivism brings the Hunter and the Farmer together in one person. OL seems to be a place that attracts people who want to integrate the Hunter and Farmer perspectives within rather than choose one over the other.

I gave some initial feedback to Michael's story which has links to related things I have written. Click here if you are interested.

Paul

Edit: I just checked the links from my initial feedback to Michael and they aren't working. Let me know if you are interested and I'll dig them up.

Edited January 4, 2007 by Paul Mawdsley

[Judith]

I have heard of men who could not have sexual relations with women whom they respected, who lived platonically—practically—with their wives, whom they loved, and had trivial affairs with woman whom they despised. All this springs from the attitude that sex is dirty. It also comes from the beliefs that love and sex are opposites. This is hardly an integration of mind and body. Such men are truly divided, conflicted in a very deep way. This is, of course, but one example of what I have been speaking about as being a deplorable state to be in. It is not good to be romantically in love with a person, and not desire them physically. It is also not a good state to desire someone sexually that you despise. But you do find this to be the reality of certain people. It's too bad, really.

The famous madonna/whore complex. Rand also wrote about it. I can't imagine what it might be like to feel that way. (*shudder*)

[Judith]

I gave some initial feedback to Michael's story which has links to related things I have written. Click here if you are interested.

Paul

Edit: I just checked the links from my initial feedback to Michael and they aren't working. Let me know if you are interested and I'll dig them up.

I'm interested. I'm going to be travelling for the next couple of weeks and may be scarce around here, but I'll definitely have a look when I can.

Judith

[Jonathan]

Ellen wrote,

Deity incarnate.

To borrow something you said earlier, I love your way of putting these things.

J

[Rich Engle]

I'm taking all this in still...

Judith's talking about the perception of raunchy/dirty.

I like it when those involved enjoy "raunchy" and "dirty." Tittilating.

Certianly not something to make a main course of, but it makes for great intermezzos, along the course of a relationship, say.

It's just like spicey food. I like spicey food. But, if all you have is spicey food, you forget what spicey really is.

The first thing, to me, is to talk openly. What are your fantasies? What are theirs? What's in common? What are the things that are so, er, "lewd," "dirty," that come to surface?

All that dirty/lewd/filthy stuff, if you treat it right, it can be enjoyed, and it's a backlash against taboos.

Taboos are illusions, there are nothing to them. But it's fun to pretend!

[Victor Pross]

I'm taking all this in still...

Judith's talking about the perception of raunchy/dirty.

I like it when those involved enjoy "raunchy" and "dirty." Tittilating.

Certianly not something to make a main course of, but it makes for great intermezzos, along the course of a relationship, say.

It's just like spicey food. I like spicey food. But, if all you have is spicey food, you forget what spicey really is.

The first thing, to me, is to talk openly. What are your fantasies? What are theirs? What's in common? What are the things that are so, er, "lewd," "dirty," that come to surface?

All that dirty/lewd/filthy stuff, if you treat it right, it can be enjoyed, and it's a backlash against taboos.

Taboos are illusions, there are nothing to them. But it's fun to pretend!

Rich,

I agree with the spirit of what you’re saying. Least it be assumed that I’m coming from a prudish premise--let alone an Ortho-premise--I believe any of my former lovers would set it straight. :turned: In a love/sexual relationship, pretty much anything goes in terms of “raunchy” stuff : oral, fantasy, toys, etc. Yeah baby, bring it on!

All this, of course, is totally irrelevant to what I have stated about the issue of love and sex. Could someone please define what the hell “dirty sex” is?

-Victor

Edited January 5, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Rich Engle]

Victor wants a concise description of getting your bad groove on:

Could someone please define what the hell “dirty sex” is?

I could, but not here. Let's settle for some Frank Zappa lyrics instead, at least to get the flavor.

DIRTY LOVE

Give me

Your dirty love

Like you might surrender

To some dragon in your dreams

Give me

Your dirty love

Like a pink donation

To the dragon in your dreams

I dont need your sweet devotion

I dont want your cheap emotion

Just whip me up some dragon lotion

For your dirty love

Give me

Your dirty love

Like some tacky little pamphlet

In your daddys bottom drawer

Give me

Your dirty love

I dont believe you have ever seen

That book before

I dont need no consolation

I dont want your reservation

I only got one destination

An thats your dirty love

Give me

Your dirty love

Just like your mama

Make her fuzzy poodle do

Give me

Your dirty love

The way your mama

Make that nasty poodle chew

Ill ignore your cheap aroma

And your little-bo-peep diploma

Ill just put you in a coma

With some dirty love

The poodle bites!

(come on, frenchie)

The poodle chews it!

(snap it!)

The poodle bites!

(come on, frenchie)

The poodle chews it!

(snap it!)