Sex and OPAR

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

Rand's view of sex is very limited. Whenever I find myself disagreeing with her, I remove the "this is true for all cases" condition and I usually find her position quite insightful (and even the harmful guilt-inducing parts often evaporate). So in the respect that her theory of sex is true for all cases, I find that condition to be wrong. I find her theory to be true for some cases, but only within some contexts. The population explosion is one small bit of evidence.

btw - You have completely missed the point with Barbara's criticism for the second time and made some pretty arbitrary speculations again. I could speculate as to why, but I won't--just register that you erred again.

Also, I limit my criticism of OPAR of poor writing or vagueness to the parts that are poorly written or vague, not to the whole book. There are more ways--rational ways--to dislike that book (or parts of it) than you presented.

Michael

[Judith]

What continues to bewilder me about your position is how you can so glibly split people up into minds, bodies, and spirits. We're all one being. We can't split ourselves apart like that.

You talked about animal sex. Have you ever watched animals having sex? It's a very beautiful thing; it's clean and pure and guiltless and healthy. Somehow people think of it as a "low" thing; I can't imagine why. Animals can't conceive of sex as being dirty. Only people can do that, so only people can make sex dirty. Animals don't split themselves apart when they have sex. They do it with their whole beings.

Judith,

Obviously my comment is to be understood in relative, not absolute terms. If a person completely loses his mind, for instance, his body stops functioning unless he is put on an artificial life support system. When I say the mind is absent in this context, I mean that conscious control according to professed will is predominantly absent--the part that purposely makes use of reason. So the idea is not to "glibly" dissect a person in non-integratable parts.

If I notice that the body has a heart and a liver, for instance, and that each part is good and that it exerts its separate influence on the body, do I then "glibly split the body up into hearts and livers"? We all have a mind, body and spirit. What's wrong with noticing that and observing the characteristics of each? Do you deny that these parts exist in a whole person? Do I really have to be master of the obvious like this to be understood?

It's one thing to talk about separate parts for the purpose of analysis. It's another thing to talk about these parts as if they operated separately and functioned separately and as if one could actually leave one or more of them behind during the sex act. It simply can't be done. We are whole, integrated persons. When we have sex, we come to the act with integrated minds, bodies, and emotions. If we try to deny that simple fact of our natures, we are lying to ourselves.

About animal sex, I think you really misunderstood me. I was attributing a negative view of this to the orthodoxy, not looking down on it myself. (I see nothing at all wrong with it.) Also, I was not talking about any animals other than human beings in this context. I was talking about the inner sexual drive--the one that surges in human beings without conscious control--that comes provided by nature. Peikoff & Co. claims that this is wonderful, but that is only lip service. When it is acted on without philosophy, they call it immoral. I don't buy it.

People talk about "animal sex" as if it is completely physical. "Animalistic" is a term used to mean mindless; completely physical. But animals don't have sex like that. Animals have minds and emotions as well as bodies, and they bring them to the sex act. They don't pretend that they're not doing what they're doing when they're doing it. They don't go off into another emotional zone when they're doing it. When they're done, they don't pretend that they didn't just do what they just did. They don't do any of the things that people do when people have what they consider to be "mindless sex". Animals have sex in accordance with their natures. And we, people, are happiest and healthiest when we have sex in accordance with our natures. That's what Peikoff is talking about, that's what Rand was talking about, that's what Branden was talking about, that's what I'm talking about. Unlike other animals, we are capable of twisting ourselves into all kinds of unhappy perversions and cutting off parts of ourselves and denying our natures, but I will never be convinced that it's healthy to do so.

Look at your experiences in Las Vegas to see this urge catered to in full bloom. Those ads would not exist if there were no market for what is going on. That market exists, not because people are immoral at root (i.e., born with "Original Sin" that they did not try to eradicate with philosophy), but instead because they have automatic sexual urges and wish to satisfy them without a lot of hassle. Money does the trick. They prefer to use their minds for other things.

I do not call that bad. That urge--and the satisfaction of it--is good. It is not the best, so obviously these people are not choosing the best in that one area of their lives. But they are still choosing the good. It is far better to sleep with a prostitute than to be celibate and lose the sexual drive altogether from atrophy.

I do not call that "animal sex". We are animals, granted, but that kind of sex is not in accord with our nature. It is unnatural. I will not try to moralize about it, because if people want it, it is their business. I just happen to be repelled by it. To engage in it successfully, one has to turn off part of one's mind. One has to be not fully conscious. If one is fully conscious, one can't perform. Try reading pornography consciously. Whenever I've read pornography, I've ended up laughing at it because it's so unbelievably silly. Yes, we have bodies, but we also have minds and we also have emotions, and to deny any of them is unnatural. To engage in any act, sexual or not, that one can't look at clear-eyed and calmly in the full light of day is not, by my lights, a good thing. We are RATIONAL animals with minds, bodies, and emotions, and we need to bring ourselves as an integrated whole to everything we do, including the sex act. In fact, it's impossible to do otherwise; when we try, we're just lying to ourselves.

Judith

[Victor Pross]

It's one thing to talk about separate parts for the purpose of analysis. It's another thing to talk about these parts as if they operated separately and functioned separately and as if one could actually leave one or more of them behind during the sex act. It simply can't be done. We are whole, integrated persons. When we have sex, we come to the act with integrated minds, bodies, and emotions. If we try to deny that simple fact of our natures, we are lying to ourselves.

Judith,

I can’t agree with you more. NOW we are talking about integration—that is what Objectivism is about. We are whole, integrated persons---metaphysically. Those who aren't--are not so--due to pathology or belief system, which might include moral choice or narcosis.

We can say that sex is good. We can also say that life is good. But if we let these types of estimates hang in the air, alone, we are leaving out much important detail when trying to sort out the question of ethics and sex. One hears on occasion some poor soul mutter that “life sucks” and I’m always inclined to rejoin that with “whose life?” The point here is that life is a discrete, individual process. Just as it is with life, it is not enough to say that “sex is good,” without the recognition of a rational ethical system.

Every man creates his own moral character by the choices he makes, and this would include—by logic and extension--his sex life, don’t you agree? Of course, there is no Original Sin, a purely religious idea that has no relationship to reality than what is alleged to Peikoff’s writings.

But what is Original Sin? It is an idea that damns human beings for the fact of possessing free-will. Humans were “perfect” before the fall, because they were “moral” automatons and became evil by attaining the faculty of moral choice. So far from speaking of Original Sin, I’m speaking of moral choices in one’s life—which includes one’s sex life.

In fact, I’m not talking about “sex ethics”—I’m talking about the necessity of ethics in one’s life, period. And of course, the realm of sex is not magically excluded---and it is more involved than saying ‘we should have taboos and laws against the practice of pedophilia, necrophilia, rape’…and the like. There’s more to the question of sex and ethics than what MSK has indicated.

I would like to think about that more.

-Victor--

edit: I wrote my post before I saw Judith's, and it is amazing to see how much we are on the same page. So I had to quote her. ;]

**

Edited January 1, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Rich Engle]

It's interesting to go past the literal meaning of Original Sin and try to say something coherent about it.

Original Sin involves biting off of the tree of knowledge, so say the words.

And of course they blame some chick for it.

It's probably the biggest connundrum in the Bible. I have theories. Like, maybe it referred to something along the lines of awareness. Or the difference between consciousness/awareness and just straight knowledge.

Who knows, step to the plate.

rde

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I do not call that "animal sex". We are animals, granted, but that kind of sex is not in accord with our nature. It is unnatural. I will not try to moralize about it, because if people want it, it is their business.

Judith,

This is something you obviously feel strongly about enough to make a statement like the one above and some of the others that simply don't hold up to scrutiny. So I won't extend this too much. But I can't help asking, are you claiming that vast quantities of humanity want something "unnatural" or that "cannot be performed"? Why would they want something unnatural? What are your reasons for supposing that? Are they born with some form of Original Sin that makes so many of them want something unnatural? (If you don't like the term "Original Sin," how about people being born "morally corrupt"?)

For a simple example, lots of people perform sex quite well every day when they are drunk. Many leave their mind behind on purpose and drink alcohol so they can "get in the mood." Do they do this because they are evil?

You mentioned how silly pornography is, yet the industry happens to be growing more and more every day. Nobody is forced to buy the stuff but they buy it in droves. People buy it because they want it. Is it serving an "unnatural" need?

This is a premise that needs to be checked.

I have no problem with an exalted view of sex as one possibility open to human beings. (I happen to choose this for my own private life.) I do have a problem with saying that all other possibilities are "unnatural." What I observe does not support this. In fact, what I observe contradicts it pretty resoundingly.

Sorry, but on this point we are going to have to agree to disagree. Besides, I will never be able to judge the biological sexual urge as something like being inherently sleazy. It is inherently good.

Michael

[Dragonfly]

I do not call that "animal sex". We are animals, granted, but that kind of sex is not in accord with our nature. It is unnatural.

When I read a statement like that many alarm bells start ringing in my head. Dogma alarm! Here you're trying to promote a personal preference to an objective law of nature. It quite sounds like a religious tract. How do you know what is "natural" and "unnatural"? What is your evidence? Merely parroting Randian dogma isn't sufficient as she didn't have any proof either. In this case I completely agree with Michael; there is something wrong with your definition of "unnatural behavior" if huge amounts of people engage in such behavior. Whether we like such behavior is completely irrelevant, as are our rationalizations for our own preferences. Man, the rationalizing animal!

[Victor Pross]

Yikes Judith,

One really bad and faulty argument [or choice of word] and anything else you said—or anything anyone else said—will be ignored like the bus boy at a Hooters restaurant.

-Victor

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor,

I don't ignore what Judith said. You might notice that I agree (up to a point) with the striving for complete integration and shooting for the best--not only in sex, but in life in general.

I disagree strongly with mischaracterizing a normal part of people (the sex drive) in such a manner that if they have had (or happen to have in the future) a completely normal experience, they will judge themselves as freaks of nature--that they performed an "unnatural" act because it wasn't "integrated" or something. That is not only unhealthy, it is untrue.

I especially appreciate Judith's positive comments on the sexuality of non-human animals. I don't necessarily agree with a certain bliss that seems to be implied as I can't forget the viciousness of cats or the plight of the male black widow spiders, etc. Also, I know dogs are aware of others when they copulate. I used to have one who would look right at you when he was doing it and if he could grin, he would. I imagined him thinking, "This is really great, man." That doesn't appear totally "integrated" to me. It appears like the dog wouldn't mind sharing with a third party if he could. The more the merrier.

Michael

[sjw]

btw - You have completely missed the point with Barbara's criticism for the second time and made some pretty arbitrary speculations again. I could speculate as to why, but I won't--just register that you erred again.

No, you have completely missed my point and are making some arbitrary speculations right here. I won't even pretend to be able to speculate as to why though.

[sjw]

Judith: You're right on the money. Excellent answers regarding integration.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

No, you have completely missed my point and are making some arbitrary speculations right here. I won't even pretend to be able to speculate as to why though.

No I'm not. You are. So there!

Michael

[sjw]

But I can't help asking, are you claiming that vast quantities of humanity want something "unnatural" or that "cannot be performed"? Why would they want something unnatural? What are your reasons for supposing that? Are they born with some form of Original Sin that makes so many of them want something unnatural? (If you don't like the term "Original Sin," how about people being born "morally corrupt"?)

Vast quantities of humanity want their government to expropriate my wealth (at the point of a gun if necessary) in order to pay for their pet causes. It doesn't get more depraved than that. So I'm not thinking your line of argument can possibly take you anywhere.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

It's called biology. It has a different root than stealing. Biology is a field usually ignored by Objectivists.

Biology exists. A is A. Biology is biology.

Michael

[Paul Mawdsley]

Dammit, Michael, you need to get a sense of humour! Jerry Springer, now that's funny!

Paul

[Judith]

I do not call that "animal sex". We are animals, granted, but that kind of sex is not in accord with our nature. It is unnatural. I will not try to moralize about it, because if people want it, it is their business.

This is something you obviously feel strongly about enough to make a statement like the one above and some of the others that simply don't hold up to scrutiny. So I won't extend this too much. But I can't help asking, are you claiming that vast quantities of humanity want something "unnatural" or that "cannot be performed"? Why would they want something unnatural? What are your reasons for supposing that? Are they born with some form of Original Sin that makes so many of them want something unnatural? (If you don't like the term "Original Sin," how about people being born "morally corrupt"?)

For a simple example, lots of people perform sex quite well every day when they are drunk. Many leave their mind behind on purpose and drink alcohol so they can "get in the mood." Do they do this because they are evil?

You mentioned how silly pornography is, yet the industry happens to be growing more and more every day. Nobody is forced to buy the stuff but they buy it in droves. People buy it because they want it. Is it serving an "unnatural" need?

This is a premise that needs to be checked.

I have no problem with an exalted view of sex as one possibility open to human beings. (I happen to choose this for my own private life.) I do have a problem with saying that all other possibilities are "unnatural." What I observe does not support this. In fact, what I observe contradicts it pretty resoundingly.

Sorry, but on this point we are going to have to agree to disagree. Besides, I will never be able to judge the biological sexual urge as something like being inherently sleazy. It is inherently good.

I think you're misunderstanding me, and I despair of ever making myself understood. If what I've said so far hasn't done the job, I don't know what more I can say. Are you sure you're reading exactly what I said and not letting certain words hit certain buttons and thinking you understand what I mean when in fact you don't?

I am not damning the biological sex drive. I'm simply saying that as human beings our biology includes our minds and our emotions. I'm saying that our biology is not sleazy. Why are you assuming that what happens between a Vegas prostitute and a john is "biological" or "natural" in any way?

As for your numbers and market argument, Michael, I'm surprised at you. Millions of people take drugs every day. Millions of people get mindlessly drunk every day. Millions of people commit crimes every day. Millions of people look at pedophilic pornography every day. Millions of people watch stupid talk shows every day. There's a market for all of it. People buy it because they want it. Don't go there.

I do not call that "animal sex". We are animals, granted, but that kind of sex is not in accord with our nature. It is unnatural.

When I read a statement like that many alarm bells start ringing in my head. Dogma alarm! Here you're trying to promote a personal preference to an objective law of nature. It quite sounds like a religious tract. How do you know what is "natural" and "unnatural"? What is your evidence? Merely parroting Randian dogma isn't sufficient as she didn't have any proof either. In this case I completely agree with Michael; there is something wrong with your definition of "unnatural behavior" if huge amounts of people engage in such behavior. Whether we like such behavior is completely irrelevant, as are our rationalizations for our own preferences. Man, the rationalizing animal!

For heaven's sake (bad word choice?), I'm not using the word "unnatural" the way Jerry Falwell et al. use the term to damn what they believe to be perverted sex acts. In the context in which I used it, it had a specific meaning: I used it to mean that we can't pretend that we are just bodies without minds or emotions. Don't let words hit hot buttons to the point where you can't hear what I'm saying.

Yikes Judith,

One really bad and faulty argument [or choice of word] and anything else you said—or anything anyone else said—will be ignored like the bus boy at a Hooters restaurant.

-Victor

Thanks, Victor -- I need some help keeping my sense of humor here!

I especially appreciate Judith's positive comments on the sexuality of non-human animals. I don't necessarily agree with a certain bliss that seems to be implied as I can't forget the viciousness of cats or the plight of the male black widow spiders, etc. Also, I know dogs are aware of others when they copulate. I used to have one who would look right at you when he was doing it and if he could grin, he would. I imagined him thinking, "This is really great, man." That doesn't appear totally "integrated" to me. It appears like the dog wouldn't mind sharing with a third party if he could. The more the merrier.

It's not in the animals' nature to have the same kind of sex we do. They have sex appropriate to their natures. In the case of the dog, he's having a happy, guiltless experience, totally integrated with the rest of his self. I'm not so sure he'd be willing to share, though. :devil:

It's interesting to go past the literal meaning of Original Sin and try to say something coherent about it.

Original Sin involves biting off of the tree of knowledge, so say the words.

And of course they blame some chick for it.

It's probably the biggest connundrum in the Bible. I have theories. Like, maybe it referred to something along the lines of awareness. Or the difference between consciousness/awareness and just straight knowledge.

Who knows, step to the plate.

Funny you should mention that. I have an excellent article by a rabbi on the subject that I could post somewhere (I'll leave it to Michael to tell me where is the most appropriate place).

Did you know that Jews and Christians have completely different views on the subject of Original Sin? Jews apparently don't believe in it. It's a Christian invention, based on their own interpretation of the Jewish scriptures.

Judith

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I think you're misunderstanding me, and I despair of ever making myself understood. If what I've said so far hasn't done the job, I don't know what more I can say. Are you sure you're reading exactly what I said and not letting certain words hit certain buttons and thinking you understand what I mean when in fact you don't?

...

Why are you assuming that what happens between a Vegas prostitute and a john is "biological" or "natural" in any way?

...

As for your numbers and market argument, Michael, I'm surprised at you. Millions of people take drugs every day. Millions of people get mindlessly drunk every day. Millions of people commit crimes every day. Millions of people look at pedophilic pornography every day. Millions of people watch stupid talk shows every day. There's a market for all of it. People buy it because they want it. Don't go there.

Judith,

I will give it a last try. I feel exactly the same as you do in terms of being understood. For instance, why do you ignore the guilt problem that I keep mentioning that is inherent in the classic Objectivist position (which you seem to adopt)? I haven't mentioned this so far, but how about the train wreck Rand made of her own love-life by trying to impose philosophy on biology and ignoring critical parts of her own nature (and that of NB) as a human being?

I think the crux of our misunderstanding is on a level of fundamentals. For instance in the second quote above from you, you ask why I assume that an act between a Las Vegas prostitute and john is natural or biological. Well, almost any act of sex is biological. All you need is functioning genitals. But if you read my posts carefully, you will see that I did not claim what you insinuated. I claimed that such an encounter can either be natural or depraved (or unhealthy), depending on the situation. Scratching the biological urge is the natural part and I cannot damn it as "unnatural." On a fundamental level, I ask you, why do you assume that ALL experiences between a prostitute and her customer are equal? Isn't that ignoring a huge part of what goes on in order to stick to a principle?

From that manner of thinking, why not take the next step and say that all prostitutes are equal in terms of depravity? And all johns, too? And that there are no longer any individuals when they reach that level of hell on earth and moral despicability. And why stop at prostitutes? Why not condemn all Muslims, who are obviously irredeemably morally corrupt and irrational? Or all Indian savages? Or all... You see where this goes?

About the numbers, there are two standards operating. One would be rationalistic (which is what you are presupposing I am claiming) and the other is all about human nature. I don't see how anyone can claim that an act is against human nature when large numbers of people engage in it voluntarily. I prefer to say that the human nature includes certain elements and use morality to make better choices for a better life, rather than say that a perfectly natural urge is wrong and against human nature. As Dragonfly mentioned, a person may not like the way human beings are made, but to deny that an obvious urge is part of humanity is contradicted by the evidence. There are way too many people doing it by choice.

I am not saying it is the best choice because large numbers of people do it. I am saying that because large numbers of people do it, it is folly to claim that it does not exist in our nature--it does--and it is even more folly to damn that nature as evil.

You mention getting drunk, for instance. The biological urge is to feel good, not to get drunk. The urge to feel good is good in itself. Is it suddenly bad to want to feel good? People simply make a wrong choice about how best to achieve it when they get drunk (and they also run the risk of developing the disease part of addiction). But often that choice is not bad, either. People survive getting drunk and often let off pressure with alcohol. I could state something similar about your other examples (except pedophilia, where it seems so far that there is an actual mental deformity in place that is very difficult to cure or reverse).

The urge to please yourself is not bad in itself and it does not necessarily lead to hedonism or crime. This is the premise I check--and it is one that is rampant in Objectivism, which states one thing, but treats it in another--an uptight Puritanical manner, almost glorifying the guilt. Look at the poor performance of this philosophy in the area of love. Long-term relationships are the rare exception, not the rule. Something is wrong somewhere--and it ain't human nature.

No one will ever become good or achieve the highest by thinking that he has an inherently despicable part built-in unless he uses philosophy to discipline it. Yes, he has a mind as part of his biology and he must use it. But in my conception, he must use philosophy (morality) to achieve the highest and avoid pitfalls, not fix a defect in himself.

The booby-trap in Objectivism on this point is that it states that it rejects Original Sin (or a built-in moral defect in humans), but then treats subjects like sex as if man were inherently depraved unless he fixes himself with philosophy. This implies that the vast portion of humanity is depraved and was born that way. You can't have it both ways, saying one thing and doing another. I say this approach is unhealthy and wrong. I say man normally does the good in sex and can do better with philosophy.

Michael

[Dragonfly]

For heaven's sake (bad word choice?), I'm not using the word "unnatural" the way Jerry Falwell et al. use the term to damn what they believe to be perverted sex acts. In the context in which I used it, it had a specific meaning: I used it to mean that we can't pretend that we are just bodies without minds or emotions. Don't let words hit hot buttons to the point where you can't hear what I'm saying.

I hear very well what you're saying, and it's wrong:

I just happen to be repelled by it. To engage in it successfully, one has to turn off part of one's mind. One has to be not fully conscious. If one is fully conscious, one can't perform.

These are completely arbitrary assertions. Where is your evidence? How do you know that those people are not fully conscious? Or do you just think that your feelings must be representative for all people?

[Judith]

Michael, one of the main reasons I'm feeling seriously misunderstood is that you keep insisting on imputing to me positions that I've never espoused.

I do not consider my position identical with Leonard Peikoff's. He does not speak for me.

I am not a moralizer. I do not go around condemning people as being immoral or depraved. I do not go around inducing guilt. I agree with you that "No one will ever become good or achieve the highest by thinking that he has an inherently despicable part built-in unless he uses philosophy to discipline it." (Part of where we disagree is regarding what is built-in and what has become neurotic.)

And unlike many, I don't agree that Rand's love life was a "train wreck". She certainly didn't know when to let an affair end, and she certainly blinded herself to the weaknesses in those she loved, but she also had some very, very happy moments that many people go an entire lifetime without being fortunate enough to experience.

On a fundamental level, I ask you, why do you assume that ALL experiences between a prostitute and her customer are equal? Isn't that ignoring a huge part of what goes on in order to stick to a principle?

Okay, I'll admit that I'm assuming for the sake of argument that the prostitute and the john are first-time customers and are strangers to each other and are engaging in straight vanilla sex without added kinks. I'm assuming that neither either knows or cares who the other is as a person, because that's pretty much statistically accurate in a majority of cases. I'm assuming that an agreed amount of cash exchanges hands in exchange for agreed-upon sexual favors within an agreed-upon amount of time. Fair enough?

From that manner of thinking, why not take the next step and say that all prostitutes are equal in terms of depravity? And all johns, too? And that there are no longer any individuals when they reach that level of hell on earth and moral despicability. And why stop at prostitutes? Why not condemn all Muslims, who are obviously irredeemably morally corrupt and irrational? Or all Indian savages? Or all... You see where this goes?

Who said anything about depravity? I'm more inclined to think of it along the lines of neurosis, or at the very least sub-optimal functioning and self-deception. I personally find it disgusting, but I'm not going to stand on a soapbox on a street corner and lecture people about it.

I don't see how anyone can claim that an act is against human nature when large numbers of people engage in it voluntarily.

And there we disagree. For example, billions of people engage in self-deception constantly. Thwarting your own means of survival is about as against human nature as blinding your own eyes. There's no way anyone can argue that it's a good thing. And yet people do it voluntarily all the time. Some even pride themselves in their skill at it.

You mention getting drunk, for instance. The biological urge is to feel good, not to get drunk. The urge to feel good is good in itself. Is it suddenly bad to want to feel good? People simply make a wrong choice about how best to achieve it when they get drunk (and they also run the risk of developing the disease part of addiction). But often that choice is not bad, either. People survive getting drunk and often let off pressure with alcohol.

And perhaps the urge, "biological" or not, in having so-called "mindless" sex is to deceive one's self into a feeling of closeness that isn't there, or into a feeling of efficacy that isn't warranted, or some other such thing. Come on, Michael, if it were simply to scratch a physical itch, one would masturbate. And I've been arguing all along that that would be the rational thing to do if one were only scratching a physical itch. Why have you been ignoring that argument? Why should a man use a living, breathing, human woman as a human chamber pot, as the old saying used to go? And why should a woman allow herself to be so used?

Look at the poor performance of this philosophy in the area of love. Long-term relationships are the rare exception, not the rule. Something is wrong somewhere--and it ain't human nature.

I suspect that, if that is indeed true, it's for different reasons, such as (1) no distaste for divorce, as is true among religious people; (2) a general expectation of happiness and fulfillment in life, unlike many people who subscribe to other philosophies, leading people to get out of unhappy marriages; (3) high expectations specifically from romantic love and a romantic partner; and (4) a willingness to take risks and go for one's dreams and not just coast along with the "sort-of" and the "good enough" in life. Don't assume that all Objectivists sit around reading Aristotle to each other in bed.

Judith

[Judith]

These are completely arbitrary assertions. Where is your evidence? How do you know that those people are not fully conscious? Or do you just think that your feelings must be representative for all people?

I don't know that it's appropriate to talk about evidence when it comes to this subject. Is it possible to amass evidence? Is it possible to get inside other people's minds? All one can do is give one's own opinions and rely on introspection. I've never claimed to have any authority beyond that. As best I can tell from this discussion, we're putting out opinions and trying to come to some kind of common understanding based on introspection and logic.

Judith

[Dragonfly]

If you have no evidence, you shouldn't make such statements. You may give your personal opinion, but you cannot assume that what seems valid for you is necessarily valid for everyone, so you cannot judge for other people, as you do. For example, a heterosexual person may upon introspection come to the conclusion that the only "proper sex" is between man and woman, and that sex between two men or between two women cannot have the same quality (or "integration" to use an Objectivist buzzword) as hetero sex, as that heterosexual person cannot imagine himself or herself engaging in homosexual activities and may find those even quite repulsive. Does that constitute proof that homo sex can only be some second rate activity? Of course not.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

And there we disagree. For example, billions of people engage in self-deception constantly. Thwarting your own means of survival is about as against human nature as blinding your own eyes. There's no way anyone can argue that it's a good thing. And yet people do it voluntarily all the time. Some even pride themselves in their skill at it.

Judith,

Here is a typical point on where we look at the same thing from two different viewpoints. If I see billions of people doing something volitionally--I assume that this has roots in their nature, regardless of whether I like what they do or not. This is normal induction. I do not equate looking at a fact and seeing what it is with making a value judgment about it. You apparently do. (And there is a line of Objectivist thought that preaches that all facts come with inherent value judgments built into them.) At least I understand this from your statement: "There's no way anyone can argue that it's a good thing." No one was arguing that. But you go further. You claim that such people are acting against their nature. Is there any reason billions of people will volitionally act against their own nature? From what I have read so far, the answer is: No. There is no reason. They just do. (Or at the worst, they are born with a moral deficiency that needs to be corrected).

So I ask, maybe it would be a good idea to take a second look at what human nature actually is?

Another point where we talked past each other was with your description of different encounters between the prostitute and her customer. You kept it strictly to external things like first time and so forth. I was talking about the emotional and moral considerations. But the external aspects are also valid to consider. Where I suspect you judge equality of experience is precisely in the emotional and moral aspects. They are not equal, though. The (external) variety of acts alone--ranging from S&M to normal quickies--should show you that there is a full range of different inner experiences being served.

Incidentally, I do not equate behavior influenced by the actions of strong hormones pumping in the body with deceiving oneself. I think they are very different categories.

But back to deception. There actually is something in human nature that leads so many people to deceive themselves. I suspect it has to do with fear of dying, but I haven't thought about it enough. But there is one thing I am convinced of. Human beings usually do the best they can within their circumstances. I don't believe most people deceive themselves because they are moral monsters--or even because they choose evil on purpose.

I believe that in the balance between good and evil, most people choose the good most of the time. And I also believe that this is inherent in human nature. Human beings are essentially good.

Michael

[Victor Pross]

MSK and Judith,

Kat wrote: “At this stage in my life, I could not conceive of casual sex for myself, as it would be cheap and unfulfilling, but for many people, especially in their 20s, it is very much a reality.”

Why is it that Kat can’t conceive of casual sex at this stage of her life? Why is that she would find it cheap and unfulfilling? Is it because she has been overexposed to Peikoff’s writings pertaining to sex, writings that are purportedly calculated to produce a feeling of guilt? Is it because of a former religious training? Is it because the passage of time necessitates the sexual maturating of adults? OR is it because she has matured and reached a moral stature that is appropriate for all human beings? Perhaps Kat can elucidate her reasons for such a comment, and we’ll then be able to judge her reasons as being more simpatico with where I’m coming from or not.

Michael, I applaud your fully emancipated approach to sex, really I do. I don’t believe in a restrictive or a taboo approach to the questions of sex, such as you find in conventional morality. And it is unfortunate that you can’t read me or Judith without hearing the siren call of Ortho-types with their restrictions and guilt inducing techniques. It is unfortunate that you have to keep reiterating that you “don’t believe in Original Sin.” Whom do you think you are addressing?

Perhaps we should paste your comments on some Christian site where the very same conversation is taking place so it won’t be wasted. When you hear the two words “sex” and “morality” in the same sentence, do you automatically have a knee-jerk reaction recalling a poor sex education? Do you hear the school master with the belt buckle and a steady stream of denunciations? What?

Pardon me. I am irked—because you aren’t listening. [“Michael, one of the main reasons I'm feeling seriously misunderstood is that you keep insisting on imputing to me positions that I've never espoused.”]

***

Whew! Now that I have gotten that off my chest, let me try one more time—or the first time, really!

Let’s take the Objectivist branch of ethics. What are ethics? It is a code of conduct to guide the actions of human beings and the Objectivist approach is neither mystical nor social; it is a scientific approach. How is THIS entire approach to ethics barricaded from the rational consideration of the subject of sex? Are we to understand that there is no rational ethics to be applied to sex? Why do you repeat over and over like a mantra that 'sex is natural'—which it is—but you therefore falsely conclude that any manner of exercising it is morally neutral as it pertains to consenting adults? [Let's drop the animals and children from this convo, please!]

In regards to young adults in their twenties [or even younger] Kat wrote: “They are in a different stage of life and hold different values from my own. Sometimes you gotta sow your wild oats before being ready to settle down and many people do. Apparently that type of sex doesn't count as sex according to LP because it doesn't meet all the [above] criteria…”

I’m not sure what she means when she says “that type of sex doesn’t count as sex according to LP”---but I do understand the general tenor of what she is saying. Let me address it:

Young adults are still on a path of self discovery--as they are new to adulthood and their hormones are raging, so it’s no wonder that all of life is tits and beer. They are not only groping at the clubs, they are also groping for a code of ethics [if they are]. They are still learning and putting it all together. That’s fine. We have all been there. However, it still remains true that 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.

Many people would agree that a sex relation is better when it has a large psychical element than when it is purely physical. This is not a controversial statement. This is not a strictly “Objectivist canon”—it pertains to any mature and rational adult who has reached an optimal form of functioning –and that wants the best that life has to offer: a healthy functioning love/sex relationship—where all the components of what it means to be a human being are in harmony—body and soul. [Or perhaps you would advocate the life of Angie’s doctor friend? Why, sex is natural! Is that post recalled? It was duly ignored]

Love and sex is what the human race is fumbling towards--just as they are striving for freedom. Love, companionship and emotional intimacy: this is what is “natural and good”. This is the state that the purveyor of pornography, the lonely housewife [who has plenty of sex] and the promiscuous teen is looking for. They just may be going about it all wrong. They may not even know it yet. It depends on the context.

-Victor-

edit: I neither believe in Original Sin nor Original Virtue.

**

Edited January 2, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Who said anything about depravity? I'm more inclined to think of it along the lines of neurosis, or at the very least sub-optimal functioning and self-deception.

Judith,

This is indicative of where we disagree. I have no problem with "sub-optimal," if "less than the best" is meant by this and it included being the good at times. I stated that loud and clear. But your context put it with "neurosis," "self-deception" and "disgusting." Thus I arrive at the conclusion that "sub-optimal functioning" means something like depraved in this context.

It certainly does not mean "the good."

Michael

[Paul Mawdsley]

Pardon me. I am irked—because you aren't listening. ["Michael, one of the main reasons I'm feeling seriously misunderstood is that you keep insisting on imputing to me positions that I've never espoused."

I disagree. On this thread I think Judith and Michael are trying desperately hard to capture the others perspective within their own framework. More than anything I think they are becoming frustrated, to the point of accepting futility, by not being able to create a shared context despite their best efforts. I think it is a true testament to their characters that this has not degraded into name calling and personal attacks as has so often happened. Unfortunately, I think that this is destined end in an "agree to disagree" state and nothing will be resolved.

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?

Paul

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

And it is unfortunate that you can’t read me or Judith without hearing the siren call of Ortho-types with their restrictions and guilt inducing techniques. It is unfortunate that you have to keep reiterating that you “don’t believe in Original Sin.” Whom do you think you are addressing?

That's easy. I am addressing people who say that they nature of man permits only one kind of proper sex. The reiteration of Original Sin is merely to take the covers off the insinuation and show practically the only way that could be true.

Are we to understand that there is no rational ethics to be applied to sex?

You haven't understood my posts. I claim that rational ethics can be used to make the good (the automatic sex drive) better (romantic love with sex). That certainly is an application.

I could go on, but I am not being understood. My beef is with a false view of human nature--one that might include hormones, etc., but damns them as "disgusting" unless philosophy is applied. I hold a higher view of the human body--both in theory and practice. It is a magnificent organism.

Michael