John Crenshaw ([info]jcrens8392) wrote in [info]aynrandforum,
@ 2005-03-13 13:10:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
What's wrong with casual sex...
...aside from disease and risk of pregnancy?

I'm familiar with Ayn Rands views on sex and love and all that, however, I don't see how some of them follow logically from Objectivism. As I respect the woman's viewpoints I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt, which is why I'm asking for clarity on this.

Ayn Rand, as evidenced by some passage I can't recall, was undoubtedly against "casual sex", and seemed to indictate she'd have a negative view of any man who slept with "whores". My question is why? I'm sure sex with someone for whom you feel love is great, and surely better than sex with someone for whom you feel nothing, but isn't the latter still a physical pleasure, which (if proper precautions are taken) poses little to no risk of negative consequences? It seems using the same logic, one shouldn't skydive, bungie jump, go to amusement parks, or any other activity that offers mostly physical pleasure. Additionally, it seems, Ayn Rand would have frowned upon masturbation using the same logic, though I'm unsure of her views on that. Let me know what you all think.

(Post a new comment)


[info]john_j_enright
2005-03-13 07:28 pm UTC (link)
For whatever it may be worth, I have never heard of her frowning upon masturbation, nor smiling upon it either. At least it's sex with someone you love.

(Reply to this)

Rand on sex
[info]logicalargument
2005-03-13 07:32 pm UTC (link)
As I understand it (I'd have to go back to my books to find the exact quotes) Rand saw sexual desire as a response to one's core values, just as all emotions are a response to thoughts, which in turn are formed by our values. Therefore one should feel sexual desire only for those individuals who conform most fully to our own values - something one can't ascertain without knowing the person very well.

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re: Rand on sex
[info]jcrens8392
2005-03-13 07:56 pm UTC (link)
I have a desire to jump out of an airplane because I think it will be fun. Likewise, why can one not have a desire to have sex because they think it will be fun (or physically satisfying?)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(Reply from suspended user)
Re: Rand on sex
[info]glenniebun
2005-03-13 08:37 pm UTC (link)
...while he was still operating on flawed premises, yes--at the same time that he was supporting his whole deadbeat family.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]glenniebun
2005-03-13 08:35 pm UTC (link)
Sex isn't just a physical activity, and it's not just fun. It's the physical representation of romantic love, and sexual desire is the direct physical result of the psychological state.

Basically, sex without love can be fun, and can give you pleasure, but it's intellectually meaningless--and it needn't be. Likewise, romantic love without its physical counterpart is fundamentally incomplete. As you probably know, Rand's all about what things can and ought to be.

About having a single partner...according to Rand, proper romantic love is the love of your highest values as personified in your partner. You'd be hard-pressed to find two individuals who equally personify your highest values.

Glenn

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]garnetlion
2005-03-13 10:59 pm UTC (link)
It's the physical representation of romantic love

It can be, but it isn't inherently. For example, there's no romantic love in rape.

If a person can separate love from sex in a healthy (non-rapist) way, there doesn't need to be any relationship between the two. It can be just a physical.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]glenniebun
2005-03-13 11:34 pm UTC (link)
It can be, but it isn't inherently. For example, there's no romantic love in rape.

That's why rape is a perversion of sex.

Granted, I should've used the word "proper" a couple more times.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]jcrens8392
2005-03-14 12:08 am UTC (link)
That's why rape is a perversion of sex.

Are you saying this is why rape is bad? Would you contend that rape is no different from casual sex?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]glenniebun
2005-03-14 12:15 am UTC (link)
Are you saying this is why rape is bad?

That's one reason why rape is immoral. That one, though, is vastly overshadowed by the other reason: the egregious violation of the victim's rights.

Would you contend that rape is no different from casual sex?

No, I wouldn't. Casual sex isn't a violation of anybody's rights.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]jcrens8392
2005-03-14 01:15 am UTC (link)
Correct me if I'm wrong on my interpretation of your statments.

garnetlion: "It can be, but it isn't inherently. For example, there's no romantic love in rape."

glenniebun: "That's why rape is a perversion of sex."

jcrens8392: "Are you saying this is why rape is bad? Would you contend that rape is no different from casual sex?"

glenniebun: "That's one reason why rape is immoral."

You seem to be saying that one reason rape is immoral is because there is no romantic love involved, i.e. no emotional/mental connection involved, or even a twisted emotional/mental connection.

Would you say the same thing regarding skydiving? Skydiving is mostly a physical pleasure which involves no noble emotional/mental arrousal, as are the other examples I've used in my original post.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]glenniebun
2005-03-14 02:05 am UTC (link)
The perversion of the proper form of a romantic relationship adds to the immorality of rape, yes.

I wouldn't say the same thing about skydiving because skydiving is an extremely different context, as are bungee jumping and amusement park activities, from sex. Skydiving, bungee jumping, etc., don't have the same potential emotional & mental benefits. I would hold philosophically and psychologically that they are simply different beasts, and that their specific nature as primarily physical activities with some mental/emotional benefits differentiate them sharply from sex, which can potentially benefit one in huge ways both physically and emotionally.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]jcrens8392
2005-03-14 04:40 am UTC (link)
By casual sex I'm talking about a complete lack of any romantic (love-like) feelings and thus it is not a romantic relationship. It's not a perversion, but a completely seperate type of relationship altogether, hence the skydiving analogies. Principles of logic apply across contexts. What I'm arguing here is that the objectivist view on casual sex does not follow logically from it's premises, unless I'm misunderstanding it.

"Skydiving, bungee jumping, etc., don't have the same potential emotional & mental benefits."

What if you go skydiving by yourself as opposed to with a great friend? Doesn't then skydiving become an activity during which all the potential benefits aren't being realized? If one's friend isn't currently available to go skydiving, should one not go at all because the full potential of skydiving is not being realized?

I understand that sex and skydiving are different, however, I'm trying to show similar reasoning behind each activity. What if an individual is not in love? Then there exists no potential for truly meaningful sex, correct? It seems unnecessary to eliminate sex from ones life altogether simply because "love-making" isn't an option at present.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]newsbean
2005-03-14 01:20 am UTC (link)
Because it robs a person of free will. It's horrendous and damaging to the other person involved. It's wrong for the same reason that Rand said violence is wrong. Because - inherently at its core - it is simply violence.

I think that makes it entirely different from caual sex.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]jcrens8392
2005-03-14 12:07 am UTC (link)
Sex isn't just a physical activity, and it's not just fun.

This is exactly the viewpoint that I'm trying to show does not follow from it's premises.Why is sex not just a physical activity, and why is it not just fun. I challenge that it can be both of these things, logically.

You'd be hard-pressed to find two individuals who equally personify your highest values.

I don't see the relevance here.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]glenniebun
2005-03-14 12:34 am UTC (link)
Why is sex not just a physical activity, and why is it not just fun.

It's not just either of those things because it can be much, much more. It can be a meeting of minds and souls as well as bodies. It can be the emotional heights of a relationship made manifest. Or it can be "casual."

Look at it this way: when it's good, it's incredibly good. When it's bad, it's incredibly bad. When it's casual, it's an immensely pleasurable but temporary state, and barely anything more.

I'm not saying it's not a physical activity, and I'm not saying it's not fun--it's both, and can be more. To not reach for that "more," to not grasp for the higher value, and ever higher, is to settle for a lesser value. That's where it ties into the rest of Objectivism: "settling" is a form of self-abnegation, and therefore profoundly immoral.

I don't see the relevance here.

It's a philosophical justification for monogamy. You didn't explicitly mention polyamory, but someone else could apply your argument to it, so I decided to mention it first.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]jcrens8392
2005-03-14 12:59 am UTC (link)
to not grasp for the higher value, and ever higher, is to settle for a lesser value.

Here I'll agree with you completely. But I'll add that casual sex won't disqualify one from a meaningful relationship, nor will it necessarily detract from any quest toward a meaningful relationship.

It's a philosophical justification for monogamy...

Ok, I see what you were driving at here. However, I don't think my argument leads to the validity of polygamy. I'm not saying that casual sex should be had if there is better sex (meaningful sex) to be had, I'm only saying that in absence of a current possibility of the latter, have the former.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]john_j_enright
2005-03-13 11:12 pm UTC (link)
For whatever it's worth, when Leo meets Kira he takes her for a whore, but wants to take her nonetheless.

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Flawed premises
[info]logicalargument
2005-03-14 12:55 am UTC (link)
For whatever it's worth, Leo's premises remained flawed all the way to the end.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Flawed premises
[info]john_j_enright
2005-03-14 02:16 am UTC (link)
Very true. Which is one of the reasons I put the "for whatever it's worth" prefix on there.


(Reply to this) (Parent)
Re: Flawed premises
[info]thedelographer
2005-03-14 11:36 am UTC (link)
Can you name any of Leo's flawed premises? I'm not aware of any.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]newsbean
2005-03-14 01:23 am UTC (link)
Here's a reason that casual sex isn't just casual and never can be unless it takes place between two men. Sex releases a hormone in the woman that says, "Stay with this man!" It creates emotions within the woman that perhaps weren't present before. So if you're having sex with someone you don't share the values of and what nothing more than sex from - and you're a woman - you are emotionally attaching yourself to them. So for a woman it does follow logically from the premises that casual sex is bad. But again, this is only true if a woman is involved.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]newsbean
2005-03-14 01:24 am UTC (link)
(and this doesn't mean that I am necessarily anti-casual sex. But it does give a good, valid reason it might not be a good plan for women to engage in it...)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]blue_kamehame
2005-03-14 02:40 am UTC (link)
well, fuck ME, i'm a living contradiction

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]miyu_sakura
2005-03-16 01:21 pm UTC (link)
Meee toooooo.

I don't really get any "stay with this man" urges from sex. However, if I like the man I feel more bonded to him. (which is always the case since I don't care for sex outside of romance)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]blue_kamehame
2005-03-14 02:40 am UTC (link)
btw, are a guy? because i really really really really think you are.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]rinku
2005-03-14 12:46 pm UTC (link)
i took endocrinology (the study of hormones) in college, and i'm not familiar with this hormone. could you name it, or link to more info on this subject? because this seems suspicious to me.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]john_j_enright
2005-03-14 02:29 am UTC (link)
"He tells himself that all he's after is physical pleasure—but observe that he tires of his women in a week or a night, that he despises professional whores and that he loves to imagine he is seducing virtuous girls who make a great exception for his sake. It is the feeling of achievement that he seeks and never finds. What glory can there be in the conquest of a mindless body?"

That's Francisco one on one with Reardon.

(Reply to this)


[info]i_self_proclaim
2005-03-14 03:15 am UTC (link)
In her books she express her opinion that who you are physically attracted to says a lot about your value of yourself. Basically who you chose sexually is a monument to what you value. For instance Tohooey was only interested in mindless women. Jim Taggert married a woman who was poor and what he considered to be inferior. The way she presents this idea is like a challenge. If you have sex with people to make you valuable you are a second-hander because you need acceptance from someone to make you feel valuable. If you have sex with someone to show what you value then you know your worth because it comes from within your mind and you understanding of that worth is all that matters.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]jcrens8392
2005-03-14 04:56 am UTC (link)
I've read most of the books and I have a pretty thorough understanding of the philosophy.

"If you have sex with people to make you valuable you are a second-hander because you need acceptance from someone to make you feel valuable."

Replace "If you have sex with people to make you valuable..." with "If you have sex with people because it is physically pleasurable..." and finish the sentence to show what's wrong with this and then you'll be more accurately addressing my question.

I don't mean to sound confrontational; I tend to come across as such in writing.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]i_self_proclaim
2005-03-14 01:24 pm UTC (link)
In writing that I got a little off track and did not fully explain what I meant. In that pariticular sentence I wasn't trying to address why someone would have sex, but why someone would choose a specific kind of person to have sex with.
You didn't come off as confrontational. I needed to clarify.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]john_j_enright
2005-03-14 03:52 am UTC (link)
In OPAR, Peikoff includes masturbation on a list of good sexual things that should not be denied to mankind. In the first quoted sentence, he is presenting the intrinsicist view. In the second sentence, he evaluates the view.

"As to the rest of humanity, the guidance it needs is a scroll of prohibitions: no premarital sex, no divorce, no oral intercourse, no masturbation, no contraception, no abortion.

"These prohibitions are an act of war against mankind. They are the formal declaration that joy is a crime."

I think this is pretty good evidence that Rand's negative view of casual sex did not somehow include masturbation.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]jcrens8392
2005-03-14 04:20 am UTC (link)
Thanks John, I'm sure I've read those lines before at some point but it must have escaped me; I appreciate the refresher. However, I still don't see how this view on masturbation follows from the tenets of objectivism if casual (emotionally disconnected) sex does not.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]john_j_enright
2005-03-14 05:38 am UTC (link)
It's an interesting question. The Objectivist account of sex is none too detailed. The best I could do is guess. I do wonder whether Rand would have accepted the idea that casual sex is actually emotionally disconnected. Perhaps that question - whether sex can be emotionally disconnected - is really the underlying issue. She seemed to view sex as inevitably connected to one's emotions. So why does she think "casual sex" will lead to self-loathing but that masturbation will not? Well one difference is that masturbation does not involve intimate contact with someone whose character you do not particularly care for. I suppose that masturbation might still involve a somewhat idealized, albeit imaginary, partner. Rand writes of Kira that "She climbed to the pedestals of statues in the parks to kiss the cold lips of Greek gods".

It's too bad she didn't actually write more of her thoughts on this topic, so I wouldn't be reduced to guessing how the pieces are supposed fit together!

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]rinku
2005-03-14 07:46 am UTC (link)
it doesn't in fact follow from objectivism. that doesn't mean it's wrong, though, it was one of her psychological beliefs rather than a philosophical belief (and on i agree with, for reasons to follow). but it's not a philosophical issue, except perhaps as a 'metaphysics of man' thing.

in other words, not everything she disagreed with was because she disagreed with it philosophically. this is important to remember.

okay, now, why did she (and why do so many other people) not like the idea of casual sex (let's define it as 'sex with someone you care little for, who you've know for only a short time and know little about)? this isn't something i've thought about too much, but offhand, i can think of three main reasons:

first reason: promiscuity weakens selectivity. for the same reason you don't say, and don't act like, you're the best friend of everyone you know, and for the same reason you don't say that every movie is your favorite movie, and for the same reason that you don't give christmas presents to strangers, you shouldn't have sex with every opposite-sex person you know. restricting sex to people you care about shows (to them and to you) that you value them more than other people. promiscuous people have no way to show the person that they love that they value that person more than everyone else they had sex with -- well, they have ways to do that, but they aren't very convincing ways 'i love you even though i do everything that i do for you for everyone else as well' isn't really a believable statement. love is more than a feeling or belief, it also has expressions in action.

second reason: humans are naturally sexually desirious only of people who they feel are good people who would make good parents to help raise their children. this is backed up by various psychological studies: those traits which make someone a good parent are what leads to sexual desire, including moral traits. so promiscuity is bad in this sense because it says, in effect, 'i don't care who the parent of my child is' and 'i'll take anyone, no matter what'. i don't know exactly why, but i find something wrong when a moral/strong person is sexually attracted to an immoral/weak person. for example, i'm just read george orwell's biography, and am thinking 'why was he attracted to so-and-so, when she was so obviously anti-intellectual and idiotic?' -- rand felt that it implied a low self-esteem or self-image to be sexually attracted to someone too much inferior (intellectually, morally, etc.) than you are, and even though i (and i doubt she) knew exactly why we believed such a thing, it still seems kind of common sense, and it's possibly that the fact that sexual desire is based on parent-selection has something to do with this.

third reason: ever notice how leftist, communist types tend to be much more sexually promiscuous, whereas individualist, egoist types do not? this isn't really an argument for either lifestyle, but you generally find that groups which are more for statism and altruism tend to be more promiscuous; hippies and "free love" for example. this might have to do with promiscuity being fundamentally altruistic and egalitarian (treating all people equally, loving everyone equally, etc.)

(Reply to this)


[info]daydreamerboy
2005-03-14 07:53 am UTC (link)
Leonard Peikoff once mentioned on his radio show that Rand expressly approved of masturbation for young people, because it was necessary for them to develop a healthy sense of self. As for older people, he didn't say. (Why wouldn't it be?)

Also, there was a scene that got cut out of The Fountainhead where Roark has casual sex to "fulfill a need", I think was the phrase. Since that got cut out, we can only wonder if the reason she cut it was because she had second thoughts about Roark having casual sex.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]rinku
2005-03-14 12:35 pm UTC (link)
similarly/additionally, she originally was going to make roark have mistresses which meant nothing to him in the book, but then decided against it, according to her journals. maybe you're confusing that with this? i haven't heard about it being in the movie, just while she was writing the book.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]daydreamerboy
2005-03-14 02:50 pm UTC (link)
Yes, I was talking about the book, but my use of the word "scene" was unclear. Sorry. Novels have "scenes" in them, right?

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]achalanatha
2005-03-28 09:09 am UTC (link)
I do not believe that philosophy may be applied to those things which are by definition self-defined. If I value education than getting a PhD is a success. If I value money, than being a business tycoon is a success. And if I value physical pleasure, than casual sex is a success. The idea that we may divide the world into casual sex and meaningful sex and that they are diametrically opposed is one of the most offensive ideas I've heard in recent times. What starts out as casual sex and lead to meaningful sex, and what starts out as meaningful sex can certainly lead to the most carnal of desires. I used to get a hard on whenever one of my ex's said "I love you." One cannot expect the depth of experience from casual sex that one gains from romantically involved sex, but to say that there is no value in itwatsoever is to limit sex to a function as narrow as that of the strictly for reproduction view. As far as I'm concerned there is no "normal" where sex is concerned. I have known people with open relationships, who while seeking meaningful sex from their primary partner, also seek a somewhat more physical love from other people. Maybe it's the fact that I no longer feel the need to justify myself to other people, but why is it that everyone looks for validation from without?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]jcrens8392
2005-03-28 03:02 pm UTC (link)
If I value money, than being a business tycoon is a success. And if I value physical pleasure, than casual sex is a success.

My question was aimed at Ayn Rand's view on casual sex, as such, I left certain premises of objectivism, such as objectivity of values (which I believe in), unchallenged. This statment seems to be alluding to the idea that values are not objective.

And if I value physical pleasure, than casual sex is a success.
Physical pleasure can be something of value, but in the overall heirarchy of values, I would put it pretty low on the list, which is why I tried to emphasize in previous posts that only absent the possibility of meaningful sex, does casual sex seem to make sense.

As far as I'm concerned there is no "normal" where sex is concerned. I have known people with open relationships, who while seeking meaningful sex from their primary partner, also seek a somewhat more physical love from other people.
I'll agree with there being no "normal" where sex is concerned only when normal is taken to mean the "status quo". I'm taking it as a given that there is a "correct" where sex is concerned, and that's what this discussion aims to find. As stated above, I do disagree with "open relationships" as in having casual sex when meaningful sex is possible, one is giving up a higher value for a lower one.

but why is it that everyone looks for validation from without?
I'm not sure I see the relevance of this to the topic, although, I'll agree with your implication, I think.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]achalanatha
2005-03-28 08:55 pm UTC (link)
Rand said that sex was a celebration of values. If your value is physical love and so is the person you're with than I think you're okay.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…