The Morality of Monogamy

[Stephen Speicher 0]

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.

←

So, rather than respond to the substantive issues that have been raised, instead you ask if I think Roark is an Objectivist, implying he is not. When I say he is and ask you why you think he is not, you tell me to read the Journals which you say I am more familiar with than you. And, Miss Rand was heavily influenced by Nietzsche. THAT is your answer????

Inspector, whether or not you are correct in any of your conclusions, you have repeatedly made unsubstantiated assertions in lieu of arguments, and have done so rather than address the substantive issues that have been raised. No actual discussion is possible until and unless you directly address the substance, and do so by reasonable arguments rather than by proclamations.

[ADS 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?

If you intend to use this example against my position, then I think the shoe is (once again) very much on the other foot. For one, Ayn Rand says explicitly, at the end of "The John Galt Line" chapter, that Dagny and Rearden's sexual encounter occurred "in answer to the highest of one's values." This makes sense, for observe that Dagny was not sleeping with Eddie Willers before she found Rearden (although I don't she why she shouldn't have, given the views of those who are arguing against me). Rearden, although flawed, was moral and a hero. Dagny obviously had quite a high standard with regard to who she would have sex with -- much higher than what I am seeing advocated by some on this thread.

As for the fact that Dagny thought that Rearden fell short of her absolute ideal: the whole point is that she thought she would never find such an ideal man! After Dagny's wistful longing for a man better than Rearden and Francisco, Ayn Rand narrates about Dagny: "Her face pressed to her arm, she moved her head, shaking it slowly in negation. She would never find it. Her own thought of what life could be like, was all she would ever have of the world she had wanted."

This example is so consistent with what I have been advocating that I don't even know what to say any longer. When Ayn Rand said that "a sexual relationship is proper only on the ground of the highest values one can find in another human being," she meant it, and no example from her fiction can ever change this.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

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."

I'll stand by that with some clarification. First, I consider it a possible reasonable option only if having one's ideal partner is not possible. Ditto for masturbation. (Interestingly, I have heard arguments from some students of Objectivism that masturbation is an "improper and immoral misuse of one's sexual capacity.")

I, personally, have never been interested in casual or non-exclusive sex, but I can see that it could be different for others, especially for men. For men, unlike women, sex is not only an extremely important value. It is also an easily aroused, intense, and often acutely painful need.

In this regard, I find Peikoff's analogy to food is extremely apt:

Thus the joys of haute cuisine with special friends amid crystal and tapestries in a fine restaurant, or of beef stew and a glass of wine with a loving wife in one's own dining room, as against the act, equally nutritious and shielded from the elements though it may be, of chewing a piece of meat in a vacant cave somewhere. The principle is that a pleasure which was once purely biological becomes, in the life of a conceptual being, largely spiritual.

Note that the haute cuisine and the beef stew are ideal, but that the meat in the cave is biologically pleasurable and nutritious too. Lacking the ideal, the meat in the cave isn't "immoral" or "improper."

And nowhere is starvation presented as a reasonable alternative.

[RayK 0]

Here is a hypothetical question for Alex and Inspector to answer, please. John Galt, Francisco and Henry Rearden love the same woman, only one can have her in the end. If Dagny is the highest obtainable value and she has chosen John Galt, what are Henry Rearden and Francisco to do with their sex lifes from now on? By your standards their highest obtainable standard has already been taken. So, would you have them never to have sex again. If I understand your standards correctly, they should remain celibate or masturbate for the rest of their lives.

A second question is in reality and about Ayn Rand herself. Do you think that Frank O'Connor was an equivalent of Aristotle or a male Ayn Rand? I do not think so (this is not to take anything away from this man). So why did Ayn Rand fall in love with him? I would have to say it was his "sense of life". But, by your standards, knowing that an Aristotle existed once, she should have kept searching for her own Aristotle. When there is no match for your highest obtainable value (there was no match for Ayn Rand) what would you have had her do. Are you going to try and tell me that Ayn Rand was immoral because she did not seek out a male Ayn Rand?

A last example, which is also based in reality, is my own life. I have known my wife since 1982 and we began dating in 1985. At that age I did not have the logical philosophical base I do now. I could not define what a highest value was, nor how to achieve it. But, I did have a vague understanding of what I wanted in a woman and myself. I started dating my wife because her "sense of life" matched my own. We both did not like the situations that we were in, but knew that there was a better life to be achieved. This is why I fell in love with her, because she wanted the good life, the proud happy life that one can achieve. Neither one of us could have defined that back then, but we both knew we wanted to achieve the best life that could be had. In November we will have been married for 17 years and now we know exactly why we hold each other as a value.

To my understanding there is no such thing as an Objectivist check list for a lover or sex partner. It must be in relation to your values and the moral standard that you set for yourself. That standard for sex or a loving partner can be their "sense of life", or it could be a different standard, but it must be tied to reality.

[Ed from OC 0]

But I'm questioning the basis of that very pleasure. For, it is far from obvious to me why that pleasure is valid. 

...

Again, the supposed value that one gets from this kind of relationship must be validated, for I myself am aware of no such validation.

Alex, are you questioning the existence of such pleasure, or the moral status of it?

If the question is the former, let me emphatically say that it does exist. It is not the case that one can have intense pleasure with one's ideal partner, and no real pleasure with anyone else. There is a continuum of intensity and range of pleasure available to us, and I see no reason to restrict ourselves to nothing less than the very highest pleasures, especially in contexts where the very highest extremes of the continuum are not available, but fairly high ones are.

Of course there is a limit to how far down the continuum one should go, but the location of that limit seems highly contextual and personal to me.

Let me put it in an analogy. I love movies. I love getting into a movie and being taken on an interesting journey by a talented mind. Yet not all movies are like that. Most movies fall short. They have some good elements, but rarely are they masterpieces as a whole. And it is hard to tell in advance of seeing a movie how good it is. (Even Objectivists can violently disagree on movies like Kill Bill or Pulp Fiction, and advertising often fails to inform me properly.) So I take chances and experiment. If something intrigues me, I take a chance. Sometimes I strike gold, sometimes I strike out. Usually, though, I enjoy the experience and am glad for having spent my time there.

In a similar, thought not identical, manner, dating and sex can be very rewarding and pleasurable even if it is not ideal. If I know I would enjoy one movie more than another, I know which to pursue. But if it is hard to tell, I don't put off going to movies until, say, the movie version of Atlas Shrugged is released. Likewise, I won't put off dating or sex until I find my ideal partner. And just as I can be surprised by a movie's unanticipated value, I can be surprised by the pleasure and value I find in a date or a partner.

[Ed from OC 0]

As for the fact that Dagny thought that Rearden fell short of her absolute ideal: the whole point is that she thought she would never find such an ideal man!  After Dagny's wistful longing for a man better than Rearden and Francisco, Ayn Rand narrates about Dagny: "Her face pressed to her arm, she moved her head, shaking it slowly in negation. She would never find it. Her own thought of what life could be like, was all she would ever have of the world she had wanted."

But Alex, if she knew Rearden wasn't her ideal, according to your view, doesn't that make it wrong for her to sleep with him? Doesn't that mean he doesn't reflect her "highest values?"

[Thoyd Loki 0]

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.

←

I am not sure what sort of relationships you take me to be thinking about. But I am not talking about these. I work in a beer hall, I am all to familiar with the sort of thing you are referring to.

There is a swaying here from one extreme to the other. It is either sex only with the absolute highest one can get, or it is completely devoid of any meaning and a wrangling of flesh. THis is not an accurate view of the situation, nor a fair one of humanity in general in its evaluation.

I am saying that in the course of life, in the pursuit of values (including the pursuit of what I will simply call love) it is moral to engage in relationships and even sex with one that you know is not your ultimate choice (assuming you have not found this person yet, otherwise you should be pursuing them). But, what is the nature of this relationship then?

It has to be based on largely the same basis that the ideal romantic relationship is based upon. It is not valid to meet a girl and you both find out you love the color red, and so you both jump in the sack. THere has to be an affinity and a sharing of values to some high degree-a calculation of too much complexity to simply blurt out. A shared sense of life, same ethical standards, a good number of common interests, and (oh, yes this is important) an actual physical attraction). On this last for a hypothetical (hypothetical because I am long married already); let's say I found a woman that shared all of my values, and so on and so forth, but she was skinny and not too terribly beautiful. There would be no romantic relationship. A friendship, perhaps. Simple fact is is that I am a strong curve and butt man and that is important to me-very important.

As for your point four. What makes you think that masturbation can't carry illusions? I think you could be just as screwed up in the service of self as with another. Masturbation can very well be one's means of faking reality. Why not? There is no area of human experience (minus the senses) that one can't fake to one's self if they try, why should masturbation be any different?

And what is up with no chance of GETTING HURT? Psychologically I think it is a very bad idea to advocate acting from fear, instead of acting from value.

And lastly. What, in relation to GETTING HURT, is a kid following this advice going to feel at twenty-eight when he loses this woman because he is lousy in the sack and can't hold back the dam for longer than a minute because he has spent his whole life squeezing the Charmin? I'm serious too. Animals have the instinct for the act of sex, humans do not. It is something they learn, and in this skill set a lot of it is learning by doing. Not, as I am sure someone is going to accuse me of, that this can be a sole basis for having sex with another person. But, learning the ropes in your late twenties, thirties, or forties is advice I would give to an enemy for my malicious enjoyment. This is particularly true for men. To pleasure a man is a simple task. To pleasure a woman, that takes practice, skill, and a good deal of knowledge of the female anatomy, not to mention of her individual proclivities. At least it is if you are interested in keeping her around!

[Ed from OC 0]

To my understanding there is no such thing as an Objectivist check list for a lover or sex partner.  It must be in relation to your values and the moral standard that you set for yourself.  That standard for sex or a loving partner can be their "sense of life", or it could be a different standard, but it must be tied to reality.

←

I'd go further than that. Abstract discussions aren't enough. Knowledge of and explicit agreement with Objectivism is not enough. If it were, every good Objectivist would be attracted to every other one.

What matters in relationships are the two concrete individuals involved. Physical attraction, shared concrete values, common levels of maturity, and so on all have important roles. It is the whole person that is judged, not just one's explicit philosophy.

The error behind the idea of an "Objectivist check list" is the same mistaken view of epistemology as that which leads to floating abstractions. It is a disdain for concretes and a desire to deal primarily with abstractions, where concretes are used to illuminate abstractions, rather than using abstractions as tools to deal with concretes.

It is rationalism.

[Ed from OC 0]

As for your point four. What makes you think that masturbation can't carry illusions? I think you could be just as screwed up in the service of self as with another. Masturbation can very well be one's means of faking reality.

←

That's very true. In fact, it is possible to just accept masturbation as the extent of one's sex life, and give up pursuing a real relationship. It can act as a crutch, especially when coupled with the views that it is wrong to sleep with anyone less than one's ideal, and that such a person is out of one's reach or doesn't exist. That can be worse psychologically than sleeping with a few too many partners and making the occasional mistake.

And what is up with no chance of GETTING HURT? Psychologically I think it is a very bad idea to advocate acting from fear, instead of acting from value.

Also very true, and worth underscoring. Facing the chance of getting hurt is a fact of life when a value is involved and the outcome is not guaranteed. It is the decisions we make in light of this fact that separate the heroes from the cowards.

[Free Capitalist 0]

I'd like to throw a little bit in myself again:

Alex, you say,

Dagny obviously had quite a high standard with regard to who she would have sex with -- much higher than what I am seeing advocated by some on this thread.

This is a recurring straw man from the entire "your side" of the argment. It has been constantly emphasized that no one is advocating intimate relations with meaningless people here, and no one is proposing compromise of one's values for physical gratification. Yet this still remains a recurring charge from both you and Inspector, despite countless statements to the contrary. The reason why it keeps appearing over and over again can be seen in something else you said:

observe that Dagny was not sleeping with Eddie Willers

Rearden, although flawed, was moral and a hero

That's the reason: you still maintain the binary duality, where a person one associates with is either an Eddie or a Rearden, a regular friend or a hero. Since someone like me, for example, says that finding a true hero(ine) is difficult but sexual relations should still be possible without finding that "ultimate" value, you probably will conclude that I must necessarily be advocating intimate relations with just a mediocre person and no one special! Unless I'm seriously mistaken, you view it as either one or the other. This is the very crux of the issue, and the very problem that I'm addressing. It is also the reason why I repeated Stephen's quote about the fact that it's not a binary situation but a continuum, and there's a very important middle ground that you simply reduce to irrelevance.

[tommyedison 0]

Allright, just to chip my own word in.

To start with a definition of love, I'll quote Midas Mulligan "Love is the ultimate form of recognition granted to superlative values".

From what I can gather, it means that the person you love is a living example of your superlative values, values you practice, not just think you practice.

Action: - An action is an expression of your thoughts. Emergency ethics aside, this means, your actions are essentially expressions of your moral values.

What differentiates a women with whom you share some values with your highest value? The fact that you can share all your superlative values with your highest.

Sex: - It is the MOST intimate form of action you can share with someone. Since actions represent thoughts, shouldn't it follow, the person who have sex with is (or should be) the one you can be can be most intimate with, whom you can value the highest?

I know this post is a bit incoherent. Perhaps someone would like to crank out the flaws?

[tommyedison 0]

Just to add to the above, to me it is not the act of sex but rather the fact that it is the most intimate and valuable experience that you can have with a partner that leads me to conclude that it should be done only with your highest value.

[Burgess Laughlin 0]

Rearden, although flawed, was moral and a hero. [...]

As for the fact that Dagny thought that Rearden fell short of her absolute ideal: the whole point is that she thought she would never find such an ideal man!  After Dagny's wistful longing for a man better than Rearden and Francisco [...]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[bold added for emphasis.]

Here is a puzzle that has bothered me throughout this thread. I ask the following questions of anyone involved in the thread.

In what way is Rearden, a moral and heroic man, "flawed"? In the same vein, in what way does Rearden, who is both heroic and moral, "fall short" of Dagny Taggart's "absolute ideal"? In what way is John Galt "better" that Rearden?

I am not denying that Rearden is, but I am wondering in what way he is flawed, falling short, or inferior to another man.

The way can't be that he doesn't have the same philosophical values of reason, purpose, and self-esteem, because he does. It can't be because he doesn't have the virtues, because he does, as Alex has stated above ("moral"). So what more could Dagny Taggart want as her "absolute ideal" (in Alex's words)? And in what way does she find that in John Galt?

My answer is that Hank Rearden has all the values and virtues that John Galt has. The only essential distinguishing difference between Rearden and Galt is their level of accomplishment.

My point is that the possession -- explicit or not -- of highest values (and the corresponding virtues) is necessary but not sufficient. Possession of those values is and should be "binary" in deciding whether to be involved with that person.

A man either has those values and virtues or he doesn't. If one's object of sexual interest has those values, the next question (calculated by the subconscious) is two-fold: What else does he have and to what degree? For example, is he physically attractive? (A man can be out of shape through ignorance, not lack of values.) Likewise, what is his sense of life (which can be malformed through errors made in childhood)? And, last as an example, what has he accomplished in terms of his knowledge of himself and the world? This last is a function in part of intelligence, a factor which, I infer provisionally from observation, is in part due to inheritance.

My conclusion is that although some factors in choosing a partner are "binary," others are a matter of degree -- and the choice of that partner must then be made according to an individual's context. For example, if a man chooses a woman who has all the values and virtues, but whose level of accomplishment is not as high as his own is, but is still higher than any other woman he knows and can reasonably expect to find in the foreseeable future, then he can rightly choose to get involved with her sexually and romantically.

[piz 0]

[bold added for emphasis.]

Here is a puzzle that has bothered me throughout this thread. I ask the following questions of anyone involved in the thread.

In what way is Rearden, a moral and heroic man, "flawed"? In the same vein, in what way does Rearden, who is both heroic and moral, "fall short" of Dagny Taggart's "absolute ideal"? In what way is John Galt "better" that Rearden?

I am not denying that Rearden is, but I am wondering in what way he is flawed, falling short, or inferior to another man.

The way can't be that he doesn't have the same philosophical values of reason, purpose, and self-esteem, because he does. It can't be because he doesn't have the virtues, because he does, as Alex has stated above ("moral"). So what more could Dagny Taggart want as her "absolute ideal" (in Alex's words)? And in what way does she find that in John Galt?

←

The only answer I've ever found to that question is that, until he finally realizes his mistake, Rearden engages in errors of knowledge (not breaches of morality) in granting the premises of the likes of Lillian, Philip, and his mother. Galt never does that - even when he has sex with Dagny before he (by his own admission) "should," he does it with full knowledge of what he's doing and what the consequences might (and, as it turns out, will) be. Rearden's errors make him to that extent "inferior" to Galt.

My answer is that Hank Rearden has all the values and virtues that John Galt has. The only essential distinguishing difference between Rearden and Galt is their level of accomplishment.

←

If you mean economically, it could be argued Rearden appears to have a higher level of accomplishment than Galt. Remember that Dagny wonders whether Galt is rich - his situation, even his clothing, indicate that he is, while not poor, not awash in money. Compared to Rearden Steel, Galt hasn't created much. (That is, of course, leaving aside the relative valuation that comes from Galt's full and free ownership of his inventions in the valley vs. Rearden Steel existing in the fascist outside world, but you see my point.)

Of course, in terms of other accomplishments (e.g. recruiting the strikers and all that that means), Galt far exceeds Rearden.

My point is that the possession -- explicit or not -- of highest values (and the corresponding virtues) is necessary but not sufficient. Possession of those values is and should be "binary" in deciding whether to be involved with that person.

←

Good point.

A man either has those values and virtues or he doesn't. If one's object of sexual interest has those values, the next question (calculated by the subconscious) is two-fold: What else does he have and to what degree? For example, is he physically attractive? (A man can be out of shape through ignorance, not lack of values.) Likewise, what is his sense of life (which can be malformed through errors made in childhood)? And, last as an example, what has he accomplished in terms of his knowledge of himself and the world? This last is a function in part of intelligence, a factor which, I infer provisionally from observation, is in part due to inheritance.

←

Regarding that last, what one does with one's intelligence, whatever its level, is far more important than the level itself, so the genetic component of intelligence (and other attributes) isn't crucial. There are many examples in life of failed geniuses and successful men of lesser intelligence. Other than that, though, I agree with your point.

My conclusion is that although some factors in choosing a partner are "binary," others are a matter of degree -- and the choice of that partner must then be made according to an individual's context. For example, if a man chooses a woman who has all the values and virtues, but whose level of accomplishment is not as high as his own is, but is still higher than any other woman he knows and can reasonably expect to find in the foreseeable future, then he can rightly choose to get involved with her sexually and romantically.

←

I agree.

[ADS 0]

Alex, are you questioning the existence of such pleasure, or the moral status of it?

I'm not questioning the existence of the physical pleasure -- although I am questioning the existence of the spiritual pleasure, insofar as it goes beyond someone relatively superficial, and insofar as it is presented as "worth it."

[ADS 0]

But Alex, if she knew Rearden wasn't her ideal, according to your view, doesn't that make it wrong for her to sleep with him?  Doesn't that mean he doesn't reflect her "highest values?"

←

No. This is the main misunderstanding that is still persisting about my view, and it is why I have asked Stephen to stop speaking in Platonic terms like "The One." For the last time, I am not saying that one has a static ideal that one holds onto for dear life, irrespective of who one believes that one can find/attain. My point as always been that you should set yourself what you believe is the best kind of person you can find/attain, and you do not accept anything less than that. Dagny did this for her whole life.

This standard, of course, should be realistic: you should not sell yourself too short, nor should you set it unrealistically high. And, if you get enough conflicting evidence that your standard is wrong, then you should change it. The only thing I have been against, for this entire thread, is someone having sex with someone whom they have no good reason to believe is the best kind of person that they could find. Why this view is so bizarre to some, I cannot comprehend.

[ADS 0]

This is a recurring straw man from the entire "your side" of the argment. It has been constantly emphasized that no one is advocating intimate relations with

meaningless people here...

Where did I ever say this? Once again, all I have said is: highest values you can find in another human being. Dagny acted on this standard -- Miss Rand even used the exact same words to describe her actions that I have quoted from the Playboy Interview multiple times. And, I only pointed out that this standard is indeed higher than those who are arguing against me -- otherwise why are they arguing against me??

That's the reason: you still maintain the binary duality, where a person one associates with is either an Eddie or a Rearden, a regular friend or a hero.

I'm sorry, this is getting very wearisome. Obviously there are heroes that can be your friends, even members of the opposite sex (e.g., look at Dr. Peikoff and Miss Rand). Once again, all I have said is: unless you have some good reason for believing that the person you're having sex with is the best kind of person that you can find, then you shouldn't be having sex with him. And nor does this imply that only philosophical principles matter: obviously you should take other things into account, such as the person's concrete personality, career interests, other interests, the fact that they are available, the fact that you are physically attracted to them, etc. etc. etc. You have to take all of this into account, try your best to objectively set for yourself what is the best you can find/attain, and then do your best to find it.

For example: as I have discussed many times with people (not on this thread), I have no problem with someone choosing a non-Objectivist but basically rational, very attractive woman, who has a great sense of life, and who shares your career and other interests, over an Objectivist woman who is only average-looking, who does not share your concrete interests, and whose personality does not match up with yours. In fact, in a situation like this, it would be hard to make a case not to choose the non-Objectivist woman, since one would presumably value these traits higher for a long-term relationship than mere explicit philosophical agreement. So, if this kind of non-Objectivist woman is the best you think you can find, then go for it.

The principle I have been articulating remains the same: put negatively, do not have sex with someone whom you have no good reason to believe is the best kind of person you can find. Yes, this abstract, admittedly-difficult-to-apply-principle is "binary" in this sense, but if this be treason make the most of it.

Since someone like me, for example, says that finding a true hero(ine) is difficult but sexual relations should still be possible without finding that "ultimate" value, you probably will conclude that I must necessarily be advocating intimate relations with just a mediocre person and no one special!

Do you see why I do not hold this position?

I hope my last few posts helped people understand my position. If not, then I honestly give up.

[ADS 0]

I'm not questioning the existence of the physical pleasure -- although I am questioning the existence of the spiritual pleasure, insofar as it goes beyond someone relatively superficial...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That should say: "something" relatively superficial.

I apologize for the numerous typos I have made in my posts in this thread. I'm apparently not that good at proofreading when I'm very "into" a debate.

But, I will say, with all due respect to everyone here, that I would really like out of this debate, because I don't see a point in continuing this any further. Respond to me as much as you like, of course, but please try to refrain from asking me any more questions: I've done more than I ever intended to in this thread.

[Inspector 0]

When I say [Roark] is [an Objectivist] and ask you why you think he is not, you tell me to read the Journals which you say I am more familiar with than you. And, Miss Rand was heavily influenced by Nietzsche. THAT is your answer????

←

I wasn't honestly prepared for that answer from you. I wasn't honestly under the impression that he was. And now I am afraid that I am in over my head. I will admit to you that I can't continue discussing Roark with you on this level unless and until I obtain a copy of the Journals. I shouldn't have tried without them, and you have my apologies.

My other points, that I share with what Alex said, remain.

[Inspector 0]

The principle I have been articulating remains the same: put negatively, do not have sex with someone whom you have no good reason to believe is the best kind of person you can find.  Yes, this abstract, admittedly-difficult-to-apply-principle is "binary" in this sense, but if this be treason make the most of it.

Do you see why I do not hold this position?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

...And I would like to add to this, there is no such thing as "the right now girl (or guy)," at least not properly. I don't think it is proper to have sex with someone you do not love, just so that you can have sex. I think this is the mind/body split in action and it's going to result in someone getting hurt.

[Inspector 0]

Here is a hypothetical question for Alex and Inspector to answer, please.  John Galt, Francisco and Henry Rearden love the same woman, only one can have her in the end.  If Dagny is the highest obtainable value and she has chosen John Galt, what are Henry Rearden and Francisco to do with their sex lifes from now on?

←

Simple: Dagny is not the highest ontainable anymore because she is NOT obtainable. Once you've had Galt, you don't go back.

[Inspector 0]

Let me put it in an analogy.  I love movies.

←

Let me examine your analogy: You can't tell in advance if a movie will be any good, so you go see it anyway.

Are you saying that you are incapable of getting to know a person well before you sleep with them?

[Inspector 0]

I am not sure what sort of relationships you take me to be thinking about. But I am not talking about these. I work in a beer hall, I am all to familiar with the sort of thing you are referring to.

←

Maybe YOU aren't, but I saw Betsy (of all people!) advocate and defend "sex with like" and "casual sex."

I am saying that in the course of life, in the pursuit of values (including the pursuit of what I will simply call love) it is moral to engage in relationships and even sex with one that you know is not your ultimate choice (assuming you have not found this person yet, otherwise you should be pursuing them). But, what is the nature of this relationship then?

I don't agree. Sex is too valuable to engage in with those who one KNOWS to be IMPOSSIBLE as candidates for one's ultimate choice. And I think the result of such an arrangement is always a greater pain than any pleasure possibly gained.

As for your point four. What makes you think that masturbation can't carry illusions? I think you could be just as screwed up in the service of self as with another. Masturbation can very well be one's means of faking reality. Why not? There is no area of human experience (minus the senses) that one can't fake to one's self if they try, why should masturbation be any different?

You've got me there, man.

And what is up with no chance of GETTING HURT? Psychologically I think it is a very bad idea to advocate acting from fear, instead of acting from value.

*shrugs* Then don't look at it like that. Know that you have nothing substantial to gain from sex without love.

It's still true, though.

And lastly. What, in relation to GETTING HURT, is a kid following this advice going to feel at twenty-eight when he loses this woman because he is lousy in the sack and can't hold back the dam for longer than a minute because he has spent his whole life squeezing the Charmin? I'm serious too.

I don't think that's medically proven to be the case, Thoyd.

But, learning the ropes in your late twenties, thirties, or forties is advice I would give to an enemy for my malicious enjoyment.

You know, there are books on these kinds of things. If his girl accepts the same premises I do on this matter, she'd rather her lover learned with her than another woman.

[Inspector 0]

I'm not questioning the existence of the physical pleasure -- although I am questioning the existence of the spiritual pleasure, insofar as it goes beyond someone relatively superficial, and insofar as it is presented as "worth it."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Agreed. Although I would add that the ability to ignore the spiritual emptyness and wrongness of sex without love long enough to gain physical pleasure from it is a form of faking and thus I question the validity of the physical pleasure.

[Burgess Laughlin 0]

Ray asked:

Here is a hypothetical question for Alex and Inspector to answer, please.  John Galt, Francisco and Henry Rearden love the same woman, only one can have her in the end.  If Dagny is the highest obtainable value and she has chosen John Galt, what are Henry Rearden and Francisco to do with their sex lifes from now on?

This was your response:

Simple: Dagny is not the highest ontainable anymore because she is NOT obtainable. Once you've had Galt, you don't go back. 

←

Ray already said Dagny Taggart was not available. So, Inspector, would you like another chance to answer the question? I will ask you: If Dagny is the highest obtainable value and she has chosen John Galt, meaning she is no longer available for consideration by any other man, what are Hank Rearden and Francisco to do with their sex lifes from now on?