The Morality of Monogamy

[Stephen Speicher 0]

In a prior post Insprector said ...

←

My apologies for mangling Inspector's user name.

[Inspector 0]

My apologies for mangling Inspector's user name.

←

Under the circumstances, I can understand. I'm sure I mangled some spelling or other here, and if so then I am sorry for that.

[Inspector 0]

(I take it your asking because you want to know if I have had a sexual relationship like the above, because obviously I do not know anyone elses sexual concretes)

←

Actually, no, I wasn't asking for your personal information; I figured that people here were dealing with castles in the clouds and that anyone so unsuitable as a life partner would not actaully be a turn-on to an Objectivist. But, since you said that those were your pre-Objectivist days, your example doesn't really challenge my point.

Sex, which is connected to my pleasure and happiness, can be a value without love.

If you want to think that this is immoral that is fine, because I do not set my moral standards according to yours, nor do I care what you think of me.  I am here for myself.  To quote Ayn Rand,

Ray, I will also quote Ayn Rand:

Only the man who extols the purity of a love devoid of desire is capable of the depravity of a desire devoid of love.

Emphasis mine in both Ray's and Ayn Rand's words.

I do not think I am misinterpreting Ayn Rand when I say that it was her opinion that sex without love is "depravity." What else could she possibly mean by that?

I happen to agree with her.

[Inspector 0]

I never had any binary duality. All I have said is that it is not proper to have sex without being in love with the person with whom one is having sex.

*

That is very disingenuous statement. In a prior post Insprector said:

"I am against ... sex with a person that one knows is not a possible candidate for their long-time life partnership on the basis of values."

It is not just "love" that Inspector has pinned to the propriety of sex, but the knowledge and expectation of a lifetime partnership, i.e., marriage. In fact he has left no middle ground between the purpose of friendship on one end, and marriage on the other. Love can take many forms, in many degrees, and it is not a "binary duality."

*

I do not dispute this. I consider the above a corollary of love. That is how I meant it, and Stephen has the correct idea of my position. I have stated my reasons enough and need not do so again.

[Inspector 0]

I do not dispute this.

←

...Well, except for the "disingenuous" part. Open to misinterpretation, yes, and for that I apologize.

[RayK 0]

Inspector,

I never said that the person was unsuitable, and I never said that I did not hold her in high regard, but that does not have to mean love.

Also, a desire does not have to be tied to love. To desire means to long, hope or wish for, no where does it state that love plays a part in that. So, one can say "I desire a beautiful person that I value to have sex with". And, one can also say "I desire a woman to make love to." Although it seems you can not see the difference, they can be separate, or they can be connected.

Morality is a guide to help you achieve your own happiness. Which means you have to make choices according to how you are going to go about doing that. "The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live." Ayn Rand

If you can't see enjoyment in sex, with a person that you hold in high regard, but do not love, so be it. Like I already wrote earlier, I do not care, I do not conform to anyone's moral standards but my own. I do not remember ever reading Ayn Rand asking for moral conformity to her moral standard.

On a different note. In your post did you not ask for a "concrete example"? And, where did you think it was going to come from, if not I?

[Inspector 0]

Ray,

I think we are at an impasse, then. I will just answer two points here:

I do not remember ever reading Ayn Rand asking for moral conformity to her moral standard.   

←

Nor do I. I am not speaking here of divine injunctions, but practical advice. I honestly don't believe that non-contradictory happiness is to be found in sex without love. You do.

On a different note.  In your post did you not ask for a "concrete example"?  And, where did you think it was going to come from, if not I?

I didn't expect you, or anyone, to provide one. I expected that upon examining my challenge, people would realize that no such desire could exist. Of course, my expectation was based on a false expectation that others shared my premises, and is a form of begging the question.

Your particular example is doubly irrelevant to my point, since you were not an Objectivist at the time.

[RayK 0]

Inspector,

I will agree with you that we disagree. And, on the subject of my not being an Objectivist in the example, you are correct. At that time I knew nothing of Ayn Rand, but that does not mean I did not enjoy the sex as an end in itself.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Your particular example is doubly irrelevant to my point, since you were not an Objectivist at the time.

←

You made a similar remark previously about Roark not being an Objectivist and I'm puzzled.

Doesn't what is good and proper for all men generally flow from the nature of being human? So what difference does it make if someone is an Objectivist or not?

[Ed from OC 0]

So, for me to have sex with someone who shares some of my standards, but not all, I would have to evade or forget about the qualities that I cannot love.  And that would not be attractive.

←

What is your view of the first time Roark and Dominique slept together, when neither knew hardly anything about the other? (In fact, Dominique hoped Roark was a criminal!)

What is your view of Dagny's affair with Rearden, when she knew that he was not her final choice?

Were Roark and Dagny immoral?

I don't think anyone has a need or urgency, man or woman, to have sex with someone.

I strongly disagree. People try to suppress their desire or pretend it can be denied through sheer will, but in the end that need can't be denied. Look, for instance, at the damage religion has done by condemning sex. It is not just a matter of diminishing some great pleasure. The unfulfilled sexual capacity finds away to assert itself in other ways. I strongly suspect that is one reason Catholic priests have such a widespread problem with pedophilia: without a healthy outlet for their desire, it comes out in a warped, twisted form.

    I think masturbation is a great way to take care of that should the desire arise.  It's a wonderful way to express the love for yourself until you find someone to share it with.

First, masturbation should not be thought of as an acceptable long-term substitute for a healthy sex life. In the absence of a suitable relationship, it can be a way of gaining relief. In the context of a healthy relationship, it can add to one's pleasure. But masturbation by itself is nowhere near as good as sex with the right partner. Second, I don't see it as an expression of love for oneself so much as relief of an unfulfilled physical need.

[Guest danielshrugged]

What is your view of Dagny's affair with Rearden, when she knew that he was not her final choice?

Why are you suggesting that what one feels for a person who isn't his "final choice" has to be something other than love? I never doubted that Dagny loved Rearden, final choice or not.

I strongly disagree.  People try to suppress their desire or pretend it can be denied through sheer will, but in the end that need can't be denied.

You're confusing two different things. I, at least, am not saying anyone should renounce anything. There is a world of difference between telling people they cannot love and telling people to have sex as a celebration of love.

[RayK 0]

Danielshrugged,

Again I will quote from OPAR:

"Sex, in Ayn Rand's identification, is "a celebration of oneself and of existence"; it is a celebration of one's power to gain values and of the world in which one gains them. Sex, therefore, is a form of feeling happiness, but from a special perspective. Sex is the rapture of experiencing emotionally two interconnected achievements: self-esteem and the benevolent-universe conviction." Leonard Peikoff, OPAR, pg 344

To draw out Ayn Rand's own statement sex is "a celebration of oneself and of existence". And, if you want to tie sex to love, feel free. But, as I mentioned earlier it does not have to be. Know your logical reasons for doing or knowing that which you know or do, that is my understanding of being objective.

[Inspector 0]

To draw out Ayn Rand's own statement sex is "a celebration of oneself and of existence".  And, if you want to tie sex to love, feel free.  But, as I mentioned earlier it does not have to be.

←

That may be YOUR opinion, but it is not the view of Ayn Rand.

Only the man who extols the purity of a love devoid of desire is capable of the depravity of a desire devoid of love.

emphasis mine.

[Inspector 0]

You made a similar remark previously about Roark not being an Objectivist and I'm puzzled.

Doesn't what is good and proper for all men generally flow from the nature of being human?  So what difference does it make if someone is an Objectivist or not?

←

To answer your first question, yes.

The difference is that, since it is a novel that is being used by Stephen to provide an example of how an Objectivist should act, then it is critical to know whether the character in the novel is in fact an Objectivist.

[RayK 0]

Inspector,

One of the differences between you and me is that I use the Philosopy of Objectivism as a guide, and you use Ayn Rand's morality as your own, like scripture.

[Inspector 0]

Inspector,

One of the differences between you and me is that I use the Philosopy of Objectivism as a guide, and you use Ayn Rand's morality as your own, like scripture.

←

That's an inaccurate insult and it does not cover up the fact that you simultaneously claim to be in agreement with Ayn Rand and yet do not answer how you are in direct contradiction to her explicit statement. You can't have it both ways.

If you simply said "This is my opinion," I would let it rest at that, but you are explicitly claiming to be an advocate of the position put forth by Ayn Rand. And that claim is not true!

[Free Capitalist 0]

I think the discussion has taken on two largely independent dimensions at this point.

On the one hand, we're discussing/arguing here whether it's proper to be intimate with someone less than your ideal.

On the other hand, we're also discussing/arguing whether it is proper to have sex with someone without loving them, i.e. as a one night stand.

These two discussions can be discussed separately, and I would say that if there's any progress to be made here, that we delineate what we're talking about explicitly.

For example, RayK has been making a point that one night stands (i.e. sex for its own sake) are okay in principle, such as for a soldier who's away most of the year and is not capable of sustaining a relationship. However this discussion is completely independent of "sex with an ideal or not" discussion, because in Ray's example, clearly the soldier chooses to have one night stands with some great women, and not just anyone. I believe that Stephen's and Betsy's points about Roark and his one night stand with Dominique address this second topic as well.

Inspector and danielshrugged, however, appear to be talking about something else entirely, accusing RayK (and Stephen I guess) of arguing for promiscuity -- that is arguing about the first topic, not the second one which Ray is talking about here. No wonder it seems as if the two groups are talking past one another.

So let's define our ground and choose one of the two topics. Promiscuity and one night stands are not interchangeable concepts, and as Ayn Rand showed herself, good men and women can engage in one night stands and there's nothing wrong with it. We can discuss this second (if there are disagreements), or we can discuss the first one, whether intimate relations with someone less than one's ideal are proper, which was what we originally were talking about in the first place.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Inspector,

One of the differences between you and me is that I use the Philosopy of Objectivism as a guide, and you use Ayn Rand's morality as your own, like scripture.

←

That's an inaccurate insult ...

Whether it is accurate or not, it is an insult. Speaking as moderator: Ray, please find a way to make your points by reference to ideas, rather than making personal accusations. And, Inspector, what Ayn Rand says and how you interpret such, are not necessarily the same thing. You have not yet earned the distinction of being an authority on Objectivism, so please take care to speak more for yourself rather than speaking for Ayn Rand.

[Inspector 0]

And, Inspector, what Ayn Rand says and how you interpret such, are not necessarily the same thing. You have not yet earned the distinction of being an authority on Objectivism, so please take care to speak more for yourself rather than speaking for Ayn Rand.

←

No, they are not necessarily, although I am doing my best. And I will grant you that I have not yet earned that distinction, although I am strongly considering it in my long-term future.

What I have said is my interpretation and Ray is free to question the validity of it. I in fact asked for this (in post #153), but have no response so far:

What else could [Ayn Rand] possibly mean by [the "depravity" quote]?

[Stephen Speicher 0]

I in fact asked for this ...

←

My caution to you was general in nature, not confined to the immediately preceding post. This is not an issue for public debate; if you have anything further to say about this please ask me privately by PM or email.

[Burgess Laughlin 0]

Only the man who extols the purity of a love devoid of desire is capable of the depravity of a desire devoid of love.

[...] I say that it was her opinion that sex without love is "depravity." What else could she possibly mean by that?

←

Love is an "evaluation of an existent as a positive value and as a source of pleasure." (IOE, 2nd ed., p. 34)

Must every proper sexual relationship involve romantic love, which is one very special type of love, rather than simply love in the very broad sense defined above?

I see that question as the issue, given Ayn Rand's view of love in a broad sense and in various special forms (liking, affection, and romantic love). I have tried to set the groundwork for that in the new topic on Ayn Rand's view of love.

[RayK 0]

Inspector,

First, I did answer you quote in my post numbered 156. But, if you need me to further define it, I will. Lets Start with the quote and then break it down.

"Only the man who extols the purity of a love devoid of desire is capable of the depravity of a desire devoid of love."

When one translates certain words to their definitional meanings it resembles this.

Only the man who praises highly of a love lacking of hope is capable of the crookedness of a hope lacking of love.

First off, I do not think this even relates to the discussion at hand. Because, like I stated earlier, I am not talking about love, but sex without love, my definition of love. (If one goes by what Burgess posted in another post, than everything that is good should be loved. I do not agree with this and I will show why with an example; I enjoy drinking a good beer, but that does not mean I love that beer.) So your quote does not pertain to me nor the subject I was writing about.

But, when you post it three times I gather that you are trying to relate it to me, hence my rebuttal. If what you are trying to say is that I am depraved, which is how I objectively understood it, then you should expect a battle.

[Burgess Laughlin 0]

(If one goes by what Burgess posted in another post, than everything that is good should be loved.  I do not agree with this and I will show why with an example; I enjoy drinking a good beer, but that does not mean I love that beer.)

If you do not love that beer -- using Ayn Rand's broad definition of "love" -- then why are you drinking it? Is not the beer a value (no matter how small) and a source of pleasure to you?

P. S. -- If we are noting Ayn Rand's use of terms, I should point out that she did not say that everything good should be loved (in the broad sense). Root canals are good for someone with diseased teeth, but they certainly aren't a source of pleasure!

[RayK 0]

Of course I could be wrong on the subject and definition of love. But, at this point I do not understand how everything that is good equates to love.

[RayK 0]

Burgess,

If I understand you properly, everything that we hold as a value, and is good, we should love. The amount of love then would be reflected by how much personal value one gets from this good value. My question then is, where does like fit in to someone's vocabulary, if love encompasses all good values?