The Morality of Monogamy

[Inspector 0]

I draw the line at faking interest or love one doesn't feel or sex not based on SOME values.

←

If sex is only proper in the context of love, then casual sex is either NOT love or the FAKING of love. Either way it is right out as far as I am concerned.

No, that is a false alternative.  What Ayn Rand said about sex -- and Peikoff repeated -- is "Sex is good."

...Good out of context? Betsy, that seems to be what you are saying here, but I know that's not what Miss Rand meant. Good ONLY in its proper context is, I am sure, what she meant.

Ideally, yes, but many people don't have their ideal romantic partner.  Why should their only option be celibacy?

Because anything other than celibacy in that situation would CHEAPEN sex. This would be failing to treat the act with the respect it deserves. There are all manner of consequences: emotional, physical, and the damage done to one's eventual life-partner.

If  "sex with love" is not currently possible, what's wrong with "sex with like?"

Observe that she says "the highest values one can find" -- not just "the highest values."

That is repulsive to me. I can't believe that that was what Miss Rand meant by "one can find" ...that seems like saying, one could properly settle for the best "one can find," whatever that may be in absolute terms. If one can't find a great person, then a feind will do for now. YEACH! No, I think that she meant by "one can find" not, what one can find at any given particular moment, but what one expects to find in the context of one's entire life.

Remember that sex with a bad person is not a value. It is a vice.

At worst, it has the same value as masturbation: the satisfaction of a physical need. 

No, it can be much worse than that. I have heard that such sex can be downright ROTTEN.

[Inspector 0]

Was Dagny's affair with Rearden "improper?"

←

Betsy, was that latter quote from a point in the novel after Dagny had stopped having sex with Rearden? I believe it was...

[Betsy Speicher 0]

[W]as Howard Roark on Objectivist? Do you think that every one of his actions conformed to the philosophy of Objectivism?

←

The purpose of a person's life isn't to "conform to the philosophy of Objectivism."

The purpose of Objectivism is to guide a person toward a happy and successful life.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Betsy, was that latter quote from a point in the novel after Dagny had stopped having sex with Rearden? I believe it was...

←

It was while she was building the John Galt Line -- BEFORE she had sex with Rearden. She KNEW, going into the affair, that Rearden was not her final choice.

[ADS 0]

Let me pose a hypothetical.

Suppose one has an idea of his "One" (am I in the Matrix?), but try as he might, he does not meet her until he is thirty-seven. Should he be devoid of sex during all of that time of his life? Alex said he did 3, what about 15? What about 20 or more?

Then, if appropriate, you can change what your idea is of the highest you can find. I have never said that everyone must wait for Dagny -- or be celibate.

To claim that one is being an ascetic to wait for a fundamentally special person to share the most intimate part of one's self with, is to say that one has a strong desire to show this intimacy with someone else. But where is the justification for this desire to begin with?

The irony of the charges of asceticism is that the shoe is on the other foot: asceticism is a mind-body split, and that is exactly what I see people advocating here, by talking about sex devoid of any expression of one's highest values. I, by contrast, am advocating a mind-body integration, in which one's physical pleasures and behavior proceeds from (and expresses) the highest spiritual values, and where one does not have a desire to do otherwise. (And to simply presume the existence of valid desires to do otherwise is to beg the question.)

I think that Alex drops some context with "sex must not be anything other than a response to values," implying that this means sex is only proper with (to use a phrase from other posts) The One. Note that in the Playboy interview, AR goes on to say...

No one has said that one needs total certainty that the person mirrors your top values. I have continually stated that one must simply have a some real idea this person is such a mirror, and I have continually asked if people are disagreeing with this idea (which no one, that I can see, has directly answered).

Note that Miss Rand also said that you must be in a "very serious relationship" in order for sex to be proper. I must ask: do people here really think that I am putting forth a view distinct from what Miss Rand advocated? Did people object as vehemently as they are now when they first read the Playboy Interview? Or Atlas Shrugged, for that matter?

Frankly, I cannot participate in a debate where no one will a) define this non-promiscuous, non-highest-values-one-can-find standard by which one chooses to have sex, or provide a justification for the (supposed) pleasure that will result from this sex to begin with. Or, to combine these questions into one: how do you condemn promiscuity but accept this view of sex? I'm open to the possibility that this can be done, but simply saying that it is enjoyable and fulfills one's urges is very unconvincing.

It's fine and well to denouce my view as a religious dogma, but it is another thing entirely to justify such a denounciation.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

I would simply say that if one has no good reason to believe that one's sexual partner embodies the highest kind of person that one an find, then said sexual relationship is improper....

After I got seriously into Objectivism, I did not so much as date or touch a girl for three years, until I found the woman that I now love. During that three year span, I felt no desire to accept anything less than what I honestly thought I could achieve.

And you should kiss the ground upon which she walks in honor of how fortunate you are to have found such a wonderful woman, especially at such at an early age. But not all all people are as fortunate in that regard as you, and me.

Man has a need for human companionship in the form of friendship and love. Romance and sex is a higher level of the same. (Incidentally, my references to "sex," here as well as before, were not meant to apply exclusively to intercourse. By "sex" I meant, in general, the intimate contact of bodies for the purpose of pleasure, which covers a wide variety of activities.) It is not immoral or improper to have a friendship even if the friend is not The One of friendshipness. If the friendship is based upon, and is an expression of, those things we value, then the friendship can be a good one even if the friend is less of a complete person than oneself, or less than the ideal friend we would like for life.

Why should a romantic relationship involving sex be any different? Why can we have a friendship that is less than ideal, but not a sexual relationship based on the same? As long as the union is based on, and is an expression of, those things we value, why shouldn't such an intense pleasure as sex be a shared experience? Why must you wait for the partner who "embodies the highest kind of person that one an find" before ever having sex with another human being? You waited three years. How about ten years? Or thirty years? Or more? How fortunate for us who found the embodiment of our highest values in a woman while we were young, but what about those not so fortunate?

And, why is having sex proper based on "projecting the nature of the other person's soul on the basis of their body and demeanor," but it is improper to have sex, say, based on an actual sense of life to which you respond, even though the partner is not The One you intend to spend your life with?

[RayK 0]

Inspector,

You seem to be saying that sex can only be a value when tied to your one "perfect" love, (correct me if I am incorrect).

From the quotes that I wrote above, one can see I hope, that sex is a value all by itself. Also, that it should not contradict a higher value. An example of this would be as follows; I am married, I enjoy having sex, but I will not compromise my higher value, that being my wife for the value of sex with another woman. If I was single and searching for my one "perfect" love, which would be a value itself, I could and would still seek to have sex, which is a totally different value. I am not compromising my values by seeking out the good, that being sex as an end in itself. As long as I am truthful with the woman that I am with. This does not mean that you would have sex with a loser or someone below your standards, it means that you search out the best that is obtainable at this time. Sex is the achievement of joy and within the standards that you set for who you will have sex with, it is totally moral to have sex with someone that is not your "perfect" love.

If what one falls in love with is a "sense of life", than one can also have sex with someone with a similar "sense of life".

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Instead, I will ask you a question: was Howard Roark on Objectivist?

←

God, yes! Why do you think otherwise?

p.s. The fact that Roark was created before the explicit philosophy of Objectivism was defined, is irrelevant to the fact that Roark embodies that philosophy.

[ADS 0]

I've pretty much said all that I intended to say, and responded to all that I intended to respond to, when I started my involvement in this thread. Thus, I'm going to try to wind down my involvement in this debate.

It is not immoral or improper to have a friendship even if the friend is not The One of friendshipness. If the friendship is based upon, and is an expression of, those things we value, then the friendship can be a good one even if the friend is less of a complete person than oneself, or less than the ideal friend we would like for life. 

I certainly agree. But, could we refrain from speaking in Platonic terms like "The One"?

Why should a romantic relationship involving sex be any different? Why can we have a friendship that is less than ideal, but not a sexual relationship based on the same?

Because, put simply, sex is not bowling. One can share many values with many different kinds of people, but these values are not as intimate as sex, and thus should not be engaged in with the same kind of people. If Miss Rand's arguments have not convinced you of this, then I don't know that I could do any better, at least not here and now. I don't intend this to be flippant, but just my honest evaluation of the status of this debate. (Plus, if this debate keeps going all weekend, I don't know when I'll be able to finish my write-up for Round #5 of the "Who said this ..." Game. )

You waited three years. How about ten years? Or thirty years? Or more? How fortunate for us who found the embodiment of our highest values in a woman while we were young, but what about those not so fortunate?

Besides what I've already said in answer to this question, I will also say that I think the very philosophy of sex that people are putting forth in this thread makes it (on the whole) more difficult to find this ideal man/woman that everyone is supposed to be looking for all along.

And, why is having sex proper based on "projecting the nature of the other person's soul on the basis of their body and demeanor," but it is improper to have sex, say, based on an actual sense of life to which you respond, even though the partner is not The One you intend to spend your life with?

←

In my view, I've already dealt with the scenario from The Fountainhead. As for sense of life: yes, that's very important, but that's not literally all you need. The person must also embody the virtues, as well as reason, purpose, and self-esteem (again, to the highest degree that you judge yourself to be able to attain).

[SCS 0]

Besides what I've already said in answer to this question, I will also say that I think the very philosophy of sex that people are putting forth in this thread makes it (on the whole) more difficult to find this ideal man/woman that everyone is supposed to be looking for all along.

I am in total agreement with Alex and Inspector on this issue. One thing about Alex that initially attracted me to him was the fact that we had/have identical dating philosophies.

If he had engaged in multiple casual sexual relationships, I don't think it is likely that we would have ever started dating.

If the criteria for a sexual relationship is sharing a few values, then how do you decide who you should just be friends with and who you should enter into a sexual relationship with?

[Jay P 0]

The question of exactly what kind of relationship sex is appropriate in is a good one, and one that I don't think can be completely answered by reference to the Objectivist literature.

Specifically, is it ever appropriate to have a sexual relationship with another person that one knows is not, and probably never will be, one's ultimate choice of partner, but the two people are significant values to each other? In other words, the situation is that there are two people who would likely never consider marrying each other.

Would having sex in such a relationship be the same as promiscuity? I say it wouldn't be.

Promiscuity is having sex just for the sake of the physical pleasure, without regard to who one's partner is. The example that comes to mind is somebody who goes into a bar to pick up somebody, and if nobody looks good, well, have a few drinks and eventually somebody will be appealing enough. The essential characteristic of such a relationship is that one's choice of partner doesn't really matter: all one is interested in is sex. It might be that he just views sex as a form of inexpensive and available recreation. Frequently also, a promiscuous person is looking for "bragging rights" - to be able to tell his friends how many "conquests" he's had. Such a person maybe doesn't even value the physical pleasure of sex that much: mainly, he cares about what others think of him. Or promiscuity might come from extreme loneliness - it feels like anybody will do.

But this kind of relationship is not what is being discussed here. By contrast, the relationship in question is one in which the two people are values to each other. Each finds something in the other that he/she admires. Something that makes sex with this person (as opposed to somebody else) something to be desired. It's just that the other person is not one's ultimate value.

So that this doesn't get too abstract, I'll concretize it.

Suppose there's a man who is an Objectivist and a woman who is not. These people share some important values: they're passionate about the same kind of music, they enjoy the same kinds of visual art, both are intellectual people who like to discuss ideas. They enjoy each others' company. And they find each other attractive: romantically inspiring. Yet they can also see and understand enough that they don't believe that they've found a partner with whom a lifelong relationship will ever be right. In other words, their feelings for each other are real, but they only go so deep.

Should their relationship include sex? If it does, is this an example of promiscuity? My answer is that the question of sex depends further on their personal contexts - it's an option they probably should consider though. If they did have sex, it would not be promiscuity, because here, their choice of partner obviously matters a great deal to them. I think that if these people reject the idea of sex in these circumstances, they may discarding a wonderful value.

There are participants in this discussion who think that sex between these two individuals would be wrong. Maybe even immoral. If the latter, I'd really like to understand why you think it would be immoral.

Here are some objections I've seen or anticipate:

1. "People who'd have sex in such a relationship are cheapening themselves: making themselves less suitable as a partner when they finally do find the one they'd like to marry." This I don't agree with at all, and I think it results from an improper definition of promiscuity. Sexual experience is not a bad thing to have. In fact, this kind of relationship likely makes somebody a better partner: he's likely to have learned more about himself and other people.

2. "If you pursue romantic relationships in contexts like this, you'll never find your ultimate value, because you won't be looking for him/her. You'll be spending your time instead in less-satisfying relationships." This is a possibly valid objection. My thought is that if you're going to be continually looking at your partner as some sort of consolation prize, a sexual relationship is inappropriate (though not immoral). What should be the case is that the partners are instead focused on each other as values.

3. "You should want the best for yourself. A relationship on any other terms means you've settled for someone you objectively recognize is not what you deserve." This has some validity, but more needs to be said. I agree that it would be a big mistake to try to make a relationship of this kind permanent: that would mean you had "settled". But "best" needs to be understood in context. How long have you looked? How hard have you tried? What have you found so far? Given everything about yourself and your values, what kind of partner do you think objectively you can hope to find?

4. "Keep looking! If other people can find that one special person, you can too." First, I want to say that I admire the people here who have found a person who embodies their ultimate value. However, I think there are also reasons why such a quest is often difficult, maybe very diffult in some cases. You might look all your life and not find the one who's just right. One might have values that differ so strongly from the rest of the culture (I'm not talking only about being an Objectivist) that there are next to no prospecive partners who'd make a good match. One might also be a "work in progress", such that one's sense of life doesn't quite match his explicit philosophic values. At this point, maybe he's really not yet ready for the one who later on in his life, would embody his ultimate values. Or maybe he misunderstands his values such that the kind of person he responds to is not quite the right kind for a long-term relationship. Such a person has some work on himself to do, but meanwhile, should he avoid sex?

Another consideration is that sometimes a relationship that is a value, but seen as lacking, can grow into a long-term relationship. You may grow to love a person that at one time you only liked.

In summary, I think that in the kind of relationship we're talking about: in which the two people find each other to be important values, but not their ultimate romantic value, sex is often the right thing to do. Whether it is depends on the conexts of the two people. But I don't think it's immoral or promiscuous.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

But, could we refrain from speaking in Platonic terms like "The One"?

Sure. When everyone refrains from speaking of "casual sex" as characterizing our position. It is not as if anyone here has suggested casually jumping into bed with someone you bump into on the street.

Because, put simply, sex is not bowling.

Non sequitur. Friendship is also not bowling.

One can share many values with many different kinds of people, but these values are not as intimate as sex, and thus should not be engaged in with the same kind of people.

Cannot a man love a man, or a woman a woman? Friendship can have the same love, absent the sex. The intimacy of sex is unique, but the essential values are the same and, ideally, these should be the same kind of people.

If Miss Rand's arguments have not convinced you of this ...

You presume that your grasp of Ayn Rand's arguments is correct, and mine is not. I reject that and assert that my view is perfectly consistent with all that Miss Rand has said.

In my view, I've already dealt with the scenario from The Fountainhead.

Not in my view. I think there are important issues illustrated there and I do not think they have been adequately addressed. Nor has anyone addressed the points that Betsy made regarding Dagny.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

If the criteria for a sexual relationship is sharing a few values ...

This "sharing a few values" characterization is more consistent with the straw man of "casual sex" than the way the relationship has actually been characterized. There is a continuum that exists between "sharing a few values" and one's ideal, and ignoring that middle ground does not do justice to either end.

... then how do you decide who you should just be friends with and who you should enter into a sexual relationship with?

The same way you decide to love your friend yet marry your lover.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

The question of exactly what kind of relationship sex is appropriate in is a good one ...

←

I agree with the thrust of Jay P's summary of the issue. I just want to point out that even those who think they have found their ideal can discover this not to be the case. Many people have been married several times, including prominent Objectivists. This fact only highlights the already existing difficulties that young Objectivists face in searching for their ideal.

I know very few people that have been happily married to the same person for anywhere near as long as I have been. I sympathize with the young singles whose higher-than-ordinary standards make it very difficult to find the right person from among the general population, and the Objectivist community still remains relatively small. But, then again, an Objectivist with the right philosophical ideas, but with a poor sense of life, would seem to me a lesser bet than finding someone with your own sense of life, even if missing the best of conscious convictions. So, when Alex says that after waiting long enough "you can change what your idea is of the highest you can find," that "highest" available may not even hold all your same specific philosophical values.

[ADS 0]

This "sharing a few values" characterization is more consistent with the straw man of "casual sex" than the way the relationship has actually been characterized.

←

Stephen, Betsy herself, in Post #73, stated that, in lieu of having one's ideal, "casual sex and non-exclusivity are possible and proper if (1) one is honest and upfront about it and (2) it is based on some values one finds in a partner." This was, in the particular, the precise statement that Sarah was responding to.

I don't think this debate is going anywhere any longer. I've seen nothing to cause me to reconsider the views I have put forth, and I do not expect to. We all care about advocating the right way to deal with the often difficult situation of not having found one's ideal, and think the essential positions on this issue have now been drawn.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

This "sharing a few values" characterization is more consistent with the straw man of "casual sex" than the way the relationship has actually been characterized.

Stephen, Betsy herself, in Post #73, stated that, in lieu of having one's ideal, "casual sex ..."

Okay, fine. Then include Betsy in my criticism of use of the term "casual sex." There is nothing "casual" in the view I have presented, and all my substantive issues remain.

[Inspector 0]

provide a justification for the (supposed) pleasure that will result from this sex to begin with.  Or, to combine these questions into one: how do you condemn promiscuity but accept this view of sex?  I'm open to the possibility that this can be done, but simply saying that it is enjoyable and fulfills one's urges is very unconvincing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am going to have to chime in a total agreement here, and add a little bit:

1) Specifically to Thoyd Loki, I am NOT suggesting an avoidence of the pleasures of life. I am not here to project moral injunctions from BooGie. Come now, you know me better than that! I am here to warn people against the kind of relationships that are awkward, unfulfilling, and quite often capable of messing a person up, psychologically. I am here to warn people against the very real concern of painful experiences, not to demand obediance to a floating abstraction!

2) Exactly as Alex says, from everything I have heard from the people I know who have participated in these kinds of sexual relationships, they are empty, unfulfilling, and embarassing at best, and abusive and awful at their worst. I've never seen ANYONE who wasn't pursuing a sexual relationship for purely physical satisfaction, and I frankly think that would be a mind/body split and would result in Bad Things. I've heard of people that SAID they were doing it for purely physical reasons, but both of them later admitted to me that that was a lie and that they really DID want love. And that they suffered as a result.

3) Also, from everything I've heard, in such situations, the sex is, itself, awkward and NOT ALL THAT GREAT. Usually, liquor is required. The supposedly "physical satisfaction" is, from what I hear, not all that satisfying. (unless drugs or delusions are involved, and of course that makes things MUCH worse)

4) At least, with masturbation, a person really is having no illusions about the matter. That is what I would recommend to people who do not have love in their lives. There's no illusions, no chance of faking things, no chance of GETTING HURT.

[Inspector 0]

And, why is having sex proper based on "projecting the nature of the other person's soul on the basis of their body and demeanor," but it is improper to have sex, say, based on an actual sense of life to which you respond, even though the partner is not The One you intend to spend your life with?

←

Because the former is based on the belief, however unlikely, that that person may be one's lifelong partner and "One." The latter is definitely not.

[Inspector 0]

God, yes! Why do you think otherwise?

p.s. The fact that Roark was created before the explicit philosophy of Objectivism was defined, is irrelevant to the fact that Roark embodies that philosophy.

←

Ayn Rand's journals, which admittedly I do not have on me, and which you in all likelyhood are more familiar with. Read her notes in which she describes her creation of the character of Roark. She was still heavily influenced by Neitzche at that time, by her own admission.

[Inspector 0]

You seem to be saying that sex can only be a value when tied to your one "perfect" love, (correct me if I am incorrect).

←

Sex is an end in itself, but it is in my view a pervesion of sex to have it with someone with whom one is not in love. I don't know about such floating abstractions as "perfect;" (I know, to me, my wife is perfect!) but I am expressing that sex would be improper if one honestly believes that their partner has fundementally irreconcilable differences. So long as they honestly believe that the other person is "the One" (to use the term put forth here), then I don't see a problem.

[Inspector 0]

Because, put simply, sex is not bowling.  One can share many values with many different kinds of people, but these values are not as intimate as sex, and thus should not be engaged in with the same kind of people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Alex, you are putting things so well, I question the need for my involvement here. I think I've said just about everything I need to say. I am certain of what Miss Rand meant, and I agree with her. I doubt I'll have much more to say.

[Inspector 0]

The question of exactly what kind of relationship sex is appropriate in is a good one, and one that I don't think can be completely answered by reference to the Objectivist literature.

Specifically, is it ever appropriate to have a sexual relationship with another person that one knows is not, and probably never will be, one's ultimate choice of partner, but the two people are significant values to each other?  In other words, the situation is that there are two people who would likely never consider marrying each other.

←

Good questions Jay! To answer the first, in my evaluation: no.

Would having sex in such a relationship be the same as promiscuity?  I say it wouldn't be.

Agreed. I don't think that promiscuity is the proper identification of that vice. And, for the record, your example is on the extreme end of promiscuity. Yuck!

In other words, their feelings for each other are real, but they only go so deep.

Should their relationship include sex?  If it does, is this an example of promiscuity?

No, they should not. Not if he is certain that she will NEVER be the person for him. No, it is not an example of promiscuity, as such.

There are participants in this discussion who think that sex between these two individuals would be wrong.  Maybe even immoral.  If the latter, I'd really like to understand why you think it would be immoral.

*raises hand* I would think it would be immoral. As to why: because it would ultimately end in pain: more pain than they could possibly hope to gain in pleasure. When I say that sex is only properly tied to love, I don't mean it as a floating absraction: I mean it as a FACT OF REALITY. In the same sense that I mean it when I say "you shouldn't try to breathe water" or "you shouldn't put your hand in a fire." Sex IS tied to love, people who try otherwise are fooling themselves, and Someone's Going To Get Hurt.

1. "People who'd have sex in such a relationship are cheapening themselves: making themselves less suitable as a partner when they finally do find the one they'd like to marry."  This I don't agree with at all, and I think it results from an improper definition of promiscuity.  Sexual experience is not a bad thing to have.  In fact, this kind of relationship likely makes somebody a better partner: he's likely to have learned more about himself and other people.

Are you married, Jay? Do you know how COMPLETELY you want to be with that person you marry? How EXCLUSIVE you want your relationship to be? How much you want to give yourself to them and how much you want to have them give themself to you? I apologize in advance if I'm getting too personal here...

Given everything about yourself and your values, what kind of partner do you think objectively you can hope to find?

Well, that's the question, isn't it? If the partner is honestly the best that that person honestly thinks they'll ever do, then I don't see a problem with that. Of course, even under those circumstances, one can be underestimating oneself and still not be doing the right thing... but that's a differant story.

First, I want to say that I admire the people here who have found a person who embodies their ultimate value.

Thank you.

Such a person has some work on himself to do, but meanwhile, should he avoid sex?

Absolutely! Sex is the reward for the sum of your virtues. Not just ANYONE can do it right! Someone who is not sure of their values or who is in transition is the MOST likely to get messed up by a relationship. To do so would be to put effects before causes: to attempt to get the effect without the cause. Like all who do so, they're going to get hurt.

Another consideration is that sometimes a relationship that is a value, but seen as lacking, can grow into a long-term relationship.  You may grow to love a person that at one time you only liked.

When you do, THEN it would be okay to have sex.

[Inspector 0]

Sure. When everyone refrains from speaking of "casual sex" as characterizing our position. It is not as if anyone here has suggested casually jumping into bed with someone you bump into on the street.

I don't think non-exclusive relationships are immoral or undesirable under certain circumstances. Certainly non-serious, transient relationships (casually dating several people at once, for instance) can be perfectly moral so long as there is honesty and good intent.

←

Emphasis mine. Helen's is the position that I was countering, and that I was under the impression you were defending. As I said, I was under the impression that by "relationships" she meant "sexual relationships."

[Free Capitalist 0]

Alex, even though you said you'd like to wind down your participation in this thread, I'd like to request your involvement one more time. Could you respond to Betsy's post earlier in the thread, where she raised the issue of Dagny sleeping with Rearden? Rearden certainly shared some characterstics of Dagny's ideal, but he did not share those others that she was hoping she would some day find in another man. Yet she chose to sleep with him, and not only that, she chose to be in a polygamous relationship, agreeing to share him with his wife, as long as she could have him (who was not her utmost ideal anyway). This is an important scenario that I'd like to see "your side" respond to.

Stephen said a very important thing, namely:

There is a continuum that exists between "sharing a few values" and one's ideal, and ignoring that middle ground does not do justice to either end.

Both Stephen and Betsy have included this middle ground in their discussion, while I don't think either you or Inspector have addressed it much. By your argument, among those people who share your values there is no continuum, only a binary categorization: someone's either an ideal, or just a friend. Stephen's "middle ground" is missing.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

And, why is having sex proper based on "projecting the nature of the other person's soul on the basis of their body and demeanor," but it is improper to have sex, say, based on an actual sense of life to which you respond, even though the partner is not The One you intend to spend your life with?

←

Because the former is based on the belief, however unlikely, that that person may be one's lifelong partner and "One." The latter is definitely not.

←

I see. So if a man knows nothing else about a woman except that her "body and demeanor" seems to project his own sense of life, then it is fine to bed her because she might be The One. So, what then happened to the "relationship" part of sex? I guess the man does not need an actual relationship to bed the woman, just a "projected" one. But if a man responds to an actual sense of life, a sense of life that is valued based on actual experience, then it is immoral to bed her unless he thinks she is The One. Well, I'm glad that is all cleared up.