Sex and OPAR

[Victor Pross]

Michael.

"I am addressing people who say that the nature of man permits only one kind of proper sex."

The nature of man dictates the appropriate sexual ethic to human beings, and human beings have to discover it—not invent it or command it or induce it in others by guilt. I believe it is in our nature to strive towards companionship, love and sex, etc—but to have it all in harmony with one another. Ethics is not a field of arbitrary edits and commands, and, of course you know that.

-V-

Edited January 2, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Victor Pross]

M,

"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."

Hell no, that’s not my approach. That would be intrinsicism, would it not? That might be LP's approach, not mine. However, the capacity--the sex drive as such--is neutral, but how and why and what for that capacity is exorcised...is where ethics enters. Do you agree?

-Victor

Edited January 2, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

However, the capacity--the sex drive as such--is neutral, but how and why and what for--that capacity is exorcised is where ethics enters. Do you agree?

[My emphasis.]

NO!

Dictionary time:

ex·or·cise Pronunciation (ksôr-sz, -sr-)

tr.v. ex·or·cised, ex·or·cis·ing, ex·or·cis·es

1. To expel (an evil spirit) by or as if by incantation, command, or prayer.

2. To free from evil spirits or malign influences.

I hope that wasn't a Freudian slip.

Michael

[Victor Pross]

Time for a serious answer.

The capacity--the sex drive as such--is neutral, but how and why and what for--that capacity is practiced [put into action] is where ethics enters. Do you agree?

edit: I so admire the use of humor as a mean of deflection, but questions still remain unanswered, and so the value of humor, in this context, has its limitations.

You wrote: 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).

Better? It makes “the good” better? You mean moral, don’t you? Why can’t that word “MORAL” be used in place of “better”-- in this context? If you don’t object, this swings around to what I have been striving to communicate. And here I am striving for a common ground, Michael, not to bud heads.

Edited January 2, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Kat]

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.

Victor,

It seems like you understand where I am coming from. I am certainly not under the influence of Peikoff or a religious training. I did not have a strict religious upbringing or other guilt inducing influences. After all these years I simply grew up and fell in love. I've seen optimal and suboptimal sex. I choose optimal....with Michael.

As far as Michael's emanipated approach to sex, he is strictly speaking to what it is (cognitive) not what it means (normative). Michael looks at individuals and doesn't just write off an entire group of people (e.g., prostitutes, as immoral). Peikoff's approach seems to judge before identifying and that is where the problem seems to be. Personally I don't like the idea of sex as a business or spectator sport, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Kat

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The capacity--the sex drive as such--is neutral, but how and why and what for--that capacity is practiced [put into action] is where ethics enters. Do you agree?

Victor,

I agree up to a point. I believe (with all my mind and soul) that the sex drive as such--is not neutral--it is good. This is because I believe that man, the end in himself, is good and this drive is an essential part of him as a whole, normal, healthy person.

Once we go from that premise, I agree that ethics enters. But only after that premise. Nature to be commanded must be obeyed. And to be obeyed consistently, it must be correctly identified.

The booby-trap is in saying that the sex-drive is neutral. The simple fact is that you cannot permanently turn the sex drive off without a whole lot of conscious effort over a long period of time. Thus it will kick in automatically at times with no recourse to ethics whatsoever.

A healthy attitude will accept these times as simply something good that happens (regardless of what happens--or not--if it is only sex and nothing like betrayal is involved) and move back to seeking for something higher without a twinge of guilt or remorse.

An uptight person, or one who ignores the biology and focuses only on the ethics, will wallow in guilt and self-recrimination, or even self-hatred, for not living up to an ideal. The problem is that that ideal is largely based on an incomplete view of human nature.

Michael

[Rich Engle]

The sex drive is anything but neutral. The sex drive is not about context. The sex drive is the sex drive. I think that's how you start out looking at it.

The sex drive, well, has to do with life force, first of all. I think that can be said without starting a ruckus.

I've enjoyed this thread...

rde

[Victor Pross]

The sex drive is anything but neutral. The sex drive is not about context. The sex drive is the sex drive. I think that's how you start out looking at it.

The sex drive, well, has to do with life force, first of all. I think that can be said without starting a ruckus.

I've enjoyed this thread...

rde

Rich,

You enjoyed this thread? Is it over? I feel so cheap and used. :turned:

-V-

[still has a great sense of humor and wits about him]

[Victor Pross]

Biology and ethics:

The sex drive is “neutral” in that it is merely a capacity--and only that. It is not "good" or "bad" in and of itself. But where does the question of ethics come into play with a capacity? With the entrance of volition. That WE—human beings—value it is a different story, but the sex drive is merely the “metaphysically given.” *

Angie and I have been talking about sex at length [no snickers, please] and I find her views particularly enlightening. She has, as a matter of interest, done a great deal of research of this topic and commands a sum of knowledge. I would like construct her argument here, aligning the question of “biology” and “ethics:

The sex drive and hormones comes into play, of course, but how he/she decides to engage and fulfill that desire and drive will be based on one’s values and what one thinks is proper and is not proper. This speaks to how much one values oneself. Let's take a woman's sex drive as our case in point.

A woman does become more amorous when it is close to the ovulation cycle every month, meaning hormones have increased due to ovulation and release of that egg. Because of this, the sex drive is particularly strong. The woman desires sex more during this period of time, ensuring that she will engage in sex to fulfill that desire and ultimately becoming pregnant. This is the body's way of ensuring survival of the species. The woman is primed for sex and ultimately becoming pregnant now that the egg has been released. Around the time of ovulation, a woman's body releases more hormones, estrogen, progestin, as well as small amounts of testosterone, increases blood flow to that area ensuring that the woman is primed for sex and ultimately becoming pregnant. With these factors, the woman will be more willing to seek sex out during this time.

BUT, Angie argued, this is where philosophy [ethics] comes in the picture: the woman shouldn't sleep with whoever she comes across, being purely driven by the sex drive. A human being still has standards. She has her “ideal man” in mind, a certain code of what she is looking for in a mate and that code is in accord to her rational standards—if they are rational. She may think of what type of man would be a suitable father and/or a suitable partner and so forth. She shouldn't want any Joe blow on the street. She does not sleep with a man she loathes because her “sex drive is good” and because her sex drive is “calling out” to be itched.

So all through this, the mind is still the “ruling factor”—given a basic idea of what is meant by this. The men or women that give into any sexual urge and sleeps with whoever is not thinking, they are ruled by their emotions, ruled by their body, hormones. They have no code of ethics that keeps their actions and choices in check as to what is proper and right. And if a person is to conduct their life by a code of ethics, why would it not apply to their sex life?

It is not “sex drive” that is good or bad, it just is. We drive it—to a certain extent---it does not drive us. How we conduct ourselves with this biological fact is a question of ethics.

-Victor-

[Thanks, Angie baby, you are one smart chick. Is that PC?] :twitch:

*The metaphysically given cannot be right or wrong—it is the standard of right or wrong, by which a [rational] man judges his goals, his values, his choices. The metaphysically given is, was, will be, and had to be. It is not volitional.

Edited January 2, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Paul Mawdsley]

Michael,

Think of the Hunter and the Farmer. You are seeing sex through the Hunter's lens. Judith and Victor are seeing sex through the Farmer's lens. I'm just happy to be seeing sex.

The Hunter's consciousness is a dynamic flow shaped by causal and ethical principles ("ought" determined by causal projections in the context of self-interest) that allow for great freedom and flexibility in perspective. For the Hunter, the information about his environment flows through him and produces the action alternatives (e.g.: have sex with a woman who electrifies your loins and imagination) determined by the principle of the integration of the organism. His consciousness is very intuitive. Any action that is emotionally and cognitively judged to be in the interests of the organism is good. The Hunter is able to emotionally assess whether or not sex with some hotty is in his interests and is able to rationally determine the possible physical, spiritual, emotional, and social consequences of this action. If all this lines up to saying it is good, then it is good. The Hunter can dive right in and have a gilt-free good time. The Hunter's actions are determined by his nature rather than by his abstract view of his nature.

The Farmer's orientation of consciousness is different. This means that the operations of the physical components of the brain line up differently to produce a different flow of consciousness. The Farmer processes experience in a very structured hierarchical manner. The Farmer processes and filters the information from his experience through the structures and categories of his rational faculty prior to it reaching the level of emotional responses. One of those filters is his ethics, the nature of which is determined by his view of human nature. Whether it is right or wrong, complete or incomplete, his conception of human nature is an integral part of determining how he ought to act. If the Farmer's view of human nature assumes there is an absolute right in sexual behaviour beyond what is experienced as right by the Hunter, he will experience guilt if he behaves in the relative ways of the Hunter. If the Farmer's view of human nature integrates the Hunter's perspective, then the Farmer's ethics will allow for the value of sex that is fun and spiritually charging, if not an attempt at one's absolute.

There is no need for guilt in sex except when sex is against a participant's interests. If sex is against one's interests because it is based on an ethic that arises from an incomplete view of human nature, then it is not the sex that should be questioned but the view of human nature. Objectivism's view of human nature is incomplete. It doesn't allow for many parts of who I am.

Paul

Edit: Anyone who doesn't have a clue what I am talking about, see Michael's A Hunting Story

Edited January 2, 2007 by Paul Mawdsley

[Victor Pross]

paul,

I’m a farmer? How did you know I make love in overalls, pardner? :ike:

Victor

Edited January 2, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Paul Mawdsley]

paul,

I'm a farmer? How did you know I make love in overalls, pardner? :ike:

Victor,

That's easy. According to Rick Hodge, you live in Hogtown.

Paul

[Judith]

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.

I'm beginning to see that my strong feelings on the subject may be making my statements seem like pronouncements. I thought that it was implicit that I was "putting out opinions and trying to come to some kind of common understanding based on introspection and logic", but perhaps I've been assuming too much. It's time-consuming and verbose to have to hedge every statement with, "In my humble opinion," and "It seems to me," and I'll continue to assume that I don't have to do that, and as I freely admitted earlier, I'm not claiming any moral authority to speak for others here, but my strong emotions on the subject are also leading me to use emotionally charged language, and I can see why some of you might think that I'm being moralistic and judgmental when I don't mean to be. My personal repugnance for certain practices is to be distinguished from abstract moral judgment. Just as not everything that is immoral should be illegal, not everything I personally dislike is something I consider to be immoral. I'm kicking around ideas here trying to figure things out just like anybody else.

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.

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?

. . .

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 never said they were moral monsters either. Human beings are far more complex than most other animals. When they deceive themselves, they're trying to solve a problem -- usually, the alleviation of unbearable anxiety. Sometimes they're doing the best they can and sometimes they know better. The EASIEST way to solve the problem is not to see it; that would explain the wide-spread nature of self-deception. Hell, ostriches do it too. But the fact remains, without attaching any judgment to it, that cutting of one's means of survival, is an act against one's nature. Birds that are under great stress or anxiety pluck out their own feathers; that is an act against their own nature as well. I'm not saying that the birds that do so are moral monsters, but I am saying that when they do so, they are acting against their own nature.

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.

I'd put the age for that much younger: puberty and immediately after. Ages 11 to 16, maybe?

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 don't think either of us will descend to name-calling. I suspect there's more common ground than we realize because we each have strong emotions invested in the subject and we're probably talking past each other more than we realize. But to some extent, we probably will end up agreeing to disagree.

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?

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.

. . .

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, for one, am not advocating that position. For one thing, I'd never use the phrase "proper sex". For another, I'd never say that one should never have sex with anyone who doesn't share one's philosophy.

What I'm advocating against is meaningless physical gestures. Would you kiss someone you didn't love? Would you caress someone you didn't care for? Would you look lovingly into the eyes of someone who meant nothing to you? The sex act is another one of those physical gestures that MEAN something. People today go on blind dates and just assume that at the end of the evening they will kiss each other even if they don't intend to see each other again. They will hold hands even if they don't like each other. Maybe they will end up in bed. I can't believe the stories I hear about women wondering if the guy will call after they have sex. Jesus effing Christ! You've just slept with someone -- theoretically the highest possible sign of regard between two people -- and you're wondering if he cares enough about you ever to CALL you again????

All of those empty, meaningless physical gestures sicken me, not just meaningless sex. I'm shocked that people do them so lightly, not out of any Victorian Maiden sense of moral disapproval at the sight of other people having fun, but out of a sense of sacred things being desecrated.

Judith

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor,

You are playing word games. If something is the standard of the good, it is good. This "good" goes beyond ethics, but I will settle for "metaphysically correct" at that level if you don't like the word "good." Look how ridiculous the following statement is:

"The capacity for sex is neutral, but it is the standard of good and evil in how and when to engage in sex."

That's double-speak.

I am against a person feeling that they are metaphysically a freak because they did not live up to a rule. I am against guilt. There an "emotional premise" or sense of life applied to this.

Here is how the ortho-Objectivist rationalization goes:

1. Sex is wonderful and it is proper to man,

BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT...

(Actually, after you put that large "but" after that statement, you have practically annulled your statement.)

2. Man is a heroic being whose sense of life will only let him respond sexually to a soul who shares his deepest philosophical values. (This is proclaimed in the face of overwhelming evidence that this does not apply to the vast majority of humanity ever since recorded time, but I digress.)

3. As man is an integration of mind, body and spirit, and as he can only integrate them all through conscious effort, then any non-integrated sex is not proper to "man qua man." Frankly it is disgusting. (Rand's famous phrase for homosexuality.)

Need I continue? Yes, I think I will.

A person who allows this to become a deep emotional premise will start to judge everyone as potential Galts or Dagnys and will judge himself that way--for sex. Sex becomes a performance before an imaginary "god" in his mind who judges both him and his mate on exclusively philosophical standards. If he ever slips and has some non-heroic sex (those damn hormones), he knows he is unworthy of hero status. His mind did not rule. He repeats to himself: his mind did not rule! Woe be unto him! Heroes don't slip, not on that level. No siree. A breach of ethics that deep shows just how much he is incapable of living a life proper to man. He now has proof of it. He will never be a hero again. After all, Francisco D'Anconia spent a lifetime without sex because he valued it so much. So why can't he?

This is pure crap. This is a recipe for neurosis. And it is Puritanical in the extreme (except for the Puritans, proper sex was sanctioned by God between married couples for reproductive purposes only--another false all-or-nothing standard with just enough truth to make it believable).

Let me take this reasoning to the logical end. In Objectivism, sex is proper to man, but a truly proper man will forgoe it over a lifetime (like Francisco) if he can't get a proper integration up and running. So if properly integrated sex is not available and he is truly a hero, all other sex is "unnatural."

Yeah, right.

If someone swallows that in full, he deserves the all the guilt and neurosis it engenders.

Here is the proper (healthy) "emotional premise."

1. Sex is proper to man. On a biological level, if it is performed, it is good. Period.

THEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEENNNNNNNNNNNN...

2. We can add other considerations. Among those would be a high-end, with full integration for best quality, and a low-end where it can conflict with other values to the point of being a bad mix. (Note here that sex is good, but the mix is bad.)

3. According to this view, man is a heroic being (at the high end), but he has both rational and biological aspects (even at the high end). At times the rational part will be more prominent and at others the biological will be more prominent.

4. He knows that there is a sexual "fit" for him where ethics will play a strong part, but so will a host of other factors. His individuality comes with a condition that a good "fit" for him might not be a good "fit" for another--even if and when they share the same ethics.

5. This kind of man seeks wisdom, i.e., he tries to understand both ethics and his innate nature enough to achieve that "fit."

Any slip or "lesser experience" along the way is nothing more than that. A healthy person does not see this as an impediment to achieving the highest and best for himself.

And any behavior that continually repeats itself, regardless of his conscious ethics, is an indication that he has not discovered his own nature in conceptual terms yet. It is certainly not an indication that he is incapable of living a proper life as "man qua man" or an indication that he is "disgusting." On the emotional premise level, he has to feel that he is good in order to achieve happiness. So how he likes his sex is good, period, regardless if it is not good for another. This can change over time, too, as there are many factors involved, but that does not mean it has to change.

If wisdom is sought, he will try to understand himself so that he can apply ethics to fulfilling his nature without pain, fear or guilt. This is called pursuing values. If he ignores critical parts of his nature so as to fit himself to his ethics, this is called dogma.

Michael

[Paul Mawdsley]

Michael,

It sounds to me like you are advocating the pursuit of maximal psychological and sexual visibility as a standard of appropriate social and sexual relationships. Sounds very relative to me. It's relative to context. This may not be how Objectivism frames it but it certainly is how I experience it. Some smart guy has said, "context determines appropriateness." Again, we are first psychological beings, not philosophical beings. Philosophy is supposed to integrate the reality of our psychology, not the other way around.

Paul

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Judith,

I think we are closer than our different approaches are allowing. I certainly would never call you any names because of a disagreement. I admire you too much (like I do so many on OL).

Our major disagreement seems to be one of definitions. This is very well illustrated by the ostrich example. You think behavior like the ostrich hiding its head in the sand is not part of its nature and I think any observable behavior that is common to a species is part of its nature. Such behavior might not be in its best interests survival-wise, but it occurs too often with too many individuals to simply discard it as an abnormality or as "unnatural."

We generally agree on the high end for our own personal choices. I even have bewilderment (and a strong one) about women who sleep with a strange man and then wonder if he will call again. Our disagreement seems to be one of value and context focus. You condemn this outright and I merely feel bewildered until I learn more about the person, the psychological profile, the time of life, etc. (I would not extend this manner of thinking to a person attacking me, of course, because of the threat. But my epistemological method is predominantly dialectical in the Sciabarra sense of attempting to understand something from various perspectives before making a value judgment.)

I think our exchange is fruitful because it is causing each of us to rethink some premises. A good one that you brought up that just gave me pause (and was valuable) is the concept of sacred as applied to sex and love. This is important and I will do some thinking about it before writing about it again. I hope I am having the same kind of impact on you from another perspective.

I have had experiences in life that I cannot ignore. I lived in a society for years (Brazil) where I observed that the people were much more in touch with their own biological nature sex-wise than I have seen here in America (and online among Objectivists). Sex is merely a part of living and concepts like "indecent" in the purely sexual sense are not really a part of the mainstream. Here I have observed men looking at a woman's naked breast and sniggering with a filthy kind of lewdness. A Brazilian man will be interested, and the interest will be sexual, but an innocent kind of admiration is how I have perceived the underlying emotional content.

If I take the Objectivist theory of human nature on sex to be correct for all humanity, Brazilians would have to be neurotic second-handers and essentially unhappy just for the yearly Carnaval alone. (See here for typical pictures--and these are usually normal people, not professional performers, and topless is often a fashion.) I can report with an absolutely clear conscious that nothing could be further from the truth. There is a sense of pervasive joy there on practically all social levels that I find lacking here. There are other compensations, but on this point, Americans (I speak culturally) have a lot to learn from Latins in general.

Objectivism does not deal very much with emotions like jealousy, heartbreak from rejection, mating rituals, etc., yet these are integral to sex and love. Even the desire for exclusivity is--and it is not necessarily connected to heroism or an alignment with sense of life. An urge for exclusivity comes pre-wired. (In cultures where polygamy is practiced, this exclusivity is extended to a small group of people. I know of no completely promiscuous society, like what hippies tried to do with free love, where there are no boundaries whatsoever, and I know of none where jealousy has been completely eradicated.) How many crimes are committed because of jealousy? This is more than a self-esteem issue. The capacity to feel this emotion is part of our "metaphysical given."

This leads me to think about prostitution. I do not think prostitution is good in general, but I do not condemn it wholesale, meaning that it can be good sometimes. This is because I believe it is behavior that actually does breach a powerful aspect of human nature: the urge for exclusivity. On a secondary level (and I am aware that it is almost heresy to call this secondary in Objectivism), it also eliminates the idea of the sacred during specific events. Like all behavior that repeats often, it makes the ideal harder to re-grasp. If we talk on these premises, I am against prostitution (with exceptions).

If we state that prostitution always leads to moral depravity, always makes people neurotic, always makes them unhappy, always is disgusting, always is unnatural because it is not integrated with a philosophy, etc., I don't agree. Xaviera Hollander immediately comes to mind as a happy and productive individual who showed no signs of being any of that.

More later.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Paul,

That hunter and farmer thing was extremely clever. Thank you. I can even see where finding a sexual partner comes from the hunter side of our nature and making a relationship work long-term comes from the farmer part.

The saying could go: "Don't plant corn for tomorrow if you want to eat steak today." (The reverse works, too.)

Michael

[Judith]

Our major disagreement seems to be one of definitions. This is very well illustrated by the ostrich example. You think behavior like the ostrich hiding its head in the sand is not part of its nature and I think any observable behavior that is common to a species is part of its nature. Such behavior might not be in its best interests survival-wise, but it occurs too often with too many individuals to simply discard it as an abnormality or as "unnatural."

Yes, we seem to be using the terms "against nature" and "unnatural" with different meanings.

I even have bewilderment (and a strong one) about women who sleep with a strange man and then wonder if he will call again. Our disagreement seems to be one of value and context focus. You condemn this outright and I merely feel bewildered until I learn more about the person, the psychological profile, the time of life, etc.

Again, I want to emphasize the difference between moral condemnation and personal revulsion. My reaction at this point is mostly one of, "Ugh! That is very 'not-me'! How could you do that?" I haven't yet figured out whether there is, or should be, any moral condemnation involved.

I think our exchange is fruitful because it is causing each of us to rethink some premises. A good one that you brought up that just gave me pause (and was valuable) is the concept of sacred as applied to sex and love. This is important and I will do some thinking about it before writing about it again. I hope I am having the same kind of impact on you from another perspective.

Oh, definitely!

I have had experiences in life that I cannot ignore. I lived in a society for years (Brazil) where I observed that the people were much more in touch with their own biological nature sex-wise than I have seen here in America (and online among Objectivists). Sex is merely a part of living and concepts like "indecent" in the purely sexual sense are not really a part of the mainstream. Here I have observed men looking at a woman's naked breast and sniggering with a filthy kind of lewdness. A Brazilian man will be interested, and the interest will be sexual, but an innocent kind of admiration is how I have perceived the underlying emotional content.

Yes! That's a fine, healthy attitude! It's precisely that "sniggering with a filthy kind of lewdness" that disgusts me, and that "innocent kind of admiration" that I so admired in the animals. Openly admiring a fine specimen of the opposite sex is a fine, healthy thing to do. I do it all the time. :devil: Note, however, that I'm not saying that one should then drop all context and jump into bed with that perfect stranger just because one has admired him/her physically.

Judith

[Rich Engle]

I like real down and dirty sexual engagements. I do, yes!

But if you want to explore that safe and right, you need a partner, at the minimum. You need full trust.

It's a nice spice to add to spiritual sex. Again, one does not exclude the other. And most times, for me, I go for natural sex. No toys, no plans.

And then the next time I...

You see?

rde

No rules, just right.

[Victor Pross]

Michael,

I agree that a religious approach to Objectivism is ridiculous as is any "duty centered" approach is to ethics is. So why is this being addressed to me? Wrong audience. Man, somewhere deep in your mind I believe you are really convinced that I am an Ortho type—no matter how much I protest to the contrary. If not, why do you feel it necessary to denounce the Ortho-Objectivists in a post addressed to me?

Look, did I not say in one post the following:

“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.”

Note the "it pertains to any mature and rational adult who has reached an optimal form of functioning". Any--I said ANY--rational human being wants both love and sex in one package--ultimately, not because it fills some duty to ethics or Rand or any blasted authority. This fact is overwhelming in its evidence.

And then you write:

"A person who allows this to become a deep emotional premise will start to judge everyone as potential Galts or Dagnys and will judge himself that way--for sex. Sex becomes a performance before an imaginary "god" in his mind who judges both him and his mate on exclusively philosophical standards. If her ever slips and has some non-heroic sex (those damn hormones), he knows he is unworthy of hero status. His mind did not rule. He repeats to himself: his mind did not rule! Woe be unto him! Heroes don't slip, not on that level. No siree. A breach of ethics that deep shows just how much he is incapable of living a life proper to man. He now has proof of it. He will never be a hero again. After all, Francisco D'Anconia spent a lifetime without sex because he valued it so much. So why can't he?"

Wow. That's all I can say. Wow.

Only a fool of the rarest type would ever approach Objectivism this way—especially to the extreme that you caricature above. Who are these fools? Is Rand to be blamed for the handful of dogmatic dimwits, if such actually exist and to the severe degree of idiocy as portrayed above? What are you saying with this argument? That there is something inherent in Objectivism that would produce these specimens of caricatured True Believers?

Objectivism is not a religion with a series of commandments and duties. A duty-centered approach to ethics is an obligation or obedience to a higher supremacy—that is religion, not Objectivism. A duty-approach to ethics is the reliance that one must carry out certain actions not because they provide benefits, but because they are demanded—that is religion, not Objectivism. As you know, this higher authority can be an ethical system, [a faith based ethical system] a dictator, one’s family, God---or anyone or anything else that demands to control one’s life. Duty is utterly unsuited to a rational ethical system. It annihilates the concept of an objective ethics by asserting a source of ethics not based in reality, but some authority. It severs the link of thinking human beings to reality, and divides morality from rational self-interest. Duty is an obligation without reason. This is not Objectivism.

Michael, I can’t even imagine anything more contrary to Objectivism than a duty-centered approach to ethics--it is more of an accurate description of religion. And the Ortho-types who do not understand this and who try to make Objectivism a religious faith -- are fools, idiots. But it has nothing to do with me or anyone who seeks a rational life “proper to ‘man qua man,’” --as you say.

As I argued already, 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.

About sex being good? Okay, sex is good. I’m giving you that. But now what? It’s not enough to say “sex is good—so off you go, now!”—just as you can’t say “life is good—so off you go now and do as you wish!” Here, this knife is good, now bugger off and do as you wish! Okay, here's the point: a life cannot be lived without a rational code of ethics to guide its course, and neither can a sex life. [i still assume that you do believe that the philosophical enterprise of defining a rational code of ethics ought to be done--or heeded?]

In this case, Objectivism has done a damn good job--it can do a good job--if its ethics is understood and applied to all areas of one’s life, including one’s sex life—rationally. Not as a duty, but selfishly, for one’s own sake. A human being’s interest is defined as that which benefits his life. It is an evaluation of the facts of reality—NOT other men. Morality is the recognition of the fact that as human beings with a volitional consciousness--we need to adopt and practice certain rational principle in order to live, and not to fulfill a duty to some authority. We have an ethical ststem to serve our life—we do not live to serve an ethical system. But you know this. I know this. So to whom is post #164 really addressed to?

-Victor-

edit: 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. :twitch:

Edited January 3, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Ellen Stuttle]

Paul,

That hunter and farmer thing was extremely clever. Thank you. I can even see where finding a sexual partner comes from the hunter side of our nature and making a relationship work long-term comes from the farmer part.

The saying could go: "Don't plant corn for tomorrow if you want to eat steak today." (The reverse works, too.)

Michael

I haven't had time, and don't expect I will have time in the immediate future, to read through the exchange on this subject in detail. But I would like to say that I, too, found Paul's "hunter and farmer thing [...] extremely clever."

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

___

[Dragonfly]

Yes! That's a fine, healthy attitude! It's precisely that "sniggering with a filthy kind of lewdness" that disgusts me

Ha! There are few things I enjoy more than a filthy kind of lewdness. Three cheers for this unhealthy attitude!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

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?"

Here's the movie link: Y tu mamá también (2001).

A quote from there:

Plot Outline: In Mexico, two teenage boys and an attractive older woman embark on a road trip and learn a thing or two about life, friendship, sex, and each other.

Hmmmmmmmmmm...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ha! There are few things I enjoy more than a filthy kind of lewdness. Three cheers for this unhealthy attitude!

Dragonfly,

You are Dutch, so you don't count.

(They do it differently here from over where you are. It really does get obscene in a crummy sense at times. I think it has to do with old fashioned Evangelical guilt or something...)

Michael

[Paul Mawdsley]

Ha! There are few things I enjoy more than a filthy kind of lewdness. Three cheers for this unhealthy attitude!

Dragonfly,

You are Dutch, so you don't count.

(They do it differently here from over where you are. It really does get obscene in a crummy sense at times. I think it has to do with old fashioned Evangelical guilt or something...)

That would be real, historical farmers, with a Farmer's orientation, who tamed the new land with a Christian ethic filtering their experience and shaping their actions. North American culture has been profoundly influenced by this orientation with Christian ideas. Hey, this is a way in which psychological perspectives, as well as philosophical ideas, shaped human history. Which came first, the psychology or the philosophy/religion?

Edit: I was born in England and have a sense of the English culture as being more oriented to the Hunter orientation, at least in the middle and lower classes. They definitely are more relaxed about and have more fun with sex than here. Ever watched Monty Python, Benny Hill, the Carry On gang, or any British comedy? Sex is fun.

Edited January 3, 2007 by Paul Mawdsley