The Morality of Monogamy

[free spirit 0]

Free Capitalist,

No, I'm not saying that curiosity is enough for a sexual encounter, what I am saying, is that what they saw in eachother sparked the attraction. I don't think it was immoral because they were basing their encounter on values, not because of convenience or need.

Yes, I think that the person should be ideal for you given your context. Sex is a response to values, the expression of your love for them, it makes sense to have sex with someone you love, and plan to be with.

~C~

[Free Capitalist 0]

free spirit, has anyone here advocated that sex is proper without values and merely based upon convenience and need?

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Isn't the whole answer to this Roark-Dominique situation that Miss Rand just had them glean more about each other, in their various conversations and meetings, than would probably have been realistic in a non-fiction setting?

I am not sure I understand the gist of this argument. Isn't the Objectivist philosophy as realistic a philosophy as there is? And doesn't Romantic art present life "as it might be and ought to be?" If we take the literary hero of Roark as an ideal, are not his actions possible to men in physical reality?

I accept, as you previously indicated, that the root of Roark's initial attraction was his projecting the nature of Dominique's soul on the basis of her body and demeanor. And, based on a few conversations loaded with sexual innuendo, Roark had a further glimpse into Dominique's nature. But, when Roark first took Dominique did he take her with the full knowledge, awareness, and intent that she was to be his life partner? I don't think so, yet we have been told here on this thread that it is immoral to have sex unless it is with someone as a serious candidate for being one's life partner.

So, then, are we to believe that the actions of our literary heroes, those who were meant to be presented as the morally good, are less than what we thought them to be? Or, are we to hold that the actions of those characters who embody our moral ideal are not to be achieved in real life? I, for one, accept neither of these alternatives, but those who have presented a differing view seem logically stuck with one of these.

[RayK 0]

Stephen, I thoroughly agree! You have said what I have and was trying to say, but much better than I.

[ADS 0]

I am not sure I understand the gist of this argument. Isn't the Objectivist philosophy as realistic a philosophy as there is? And doesn't Romantic art present life "as it might be and ought to be?" If we take the literary hero of Roark as an ideal, are not his actions possible to men in physical reality?

I suppose I was being unclear, although I didn't mean my words to deny what you say here. Observe that I said "probably realistic" (emphasis added), by which I meant that the situation that played out between Roark and Dominique is unusual and difficult to duplicate. E.g., can you imagine knowing that a woman wanted to sleep with you (and forcibly acting on this knowledge), only after having a few conversations with her and even though she violently fought against your advance? I was only trying to highlight that this kind of situation is merely an unusual application of having sex on the basis of one's highest values, not that it is literally unrealistic or borne of fantasy.

I accept, as you previously indicated, that the root of Roark's initial attraction was his projecting the nature of Dominique's soul on the basis of her body and demeanor. And, based on a few conversations loaded with sexual innuendo, Roark had a further glimpse into Dominique's nature.

Yes, I agree with this as well.

But, when Roark first took Dominique did he take her with the full knowledge, awareness, and intent that she was to be his life partner? I don't think so, yet we have been told here on this thread that it is immoral to have sex unless it is with someone as a serious candidate for being one's life partner.

First, I have only maintained that sex should not follow unless one at least has a good idea that one's partner mirrors the highest values one can find in another human being. In the case of Roark and Dominique, I think this criterion was fulfilled, however differently than is usual.

Second, would you say that Roark had good reason -- not certainty or full knowledge, but just good reason -- to believe that Dominique would end up being his life partner? I would say so. (To be exact, I haven't actually made as part of my case that one should only have sex with someone on grounds stated in terms of a "life partner," but thinking about it in these terms is interesting nonetheless.)

So, then, are we to believe that the actions of our literary heroes, those who were meant to be presented as the morally good, are less than what we thought them to be? Or, are we to hold that the actions of those characters who embody our moral ideal are not to be achieved in real life? I, for one, accept neither of these alternatives, but those who have presented a differing view seem logically stuck with one of these.

←

I also accept neither of these alternatives, so I definitely regard us as being on the same page in this respect.

If there is a dilemma here, I think it lies in the following: how are we to make Miss Rand's explicitly stated views on sex -- e.g., those expressed in the Playboy Interview -- consistent with the "rape scene"? These are the statements from the Playboy Interview that I'm thinking of:

"A sexual relationship is proper only on the ground of the highest values one can find in a human being."

"What sex should involve is a very serious relationship."

The above is my (general) account of how to integrate all this, and I don't as yet see another way to do it. Any alternative, as far as I can see, would have to argue that a) Miss Rand meant these words in the Playboy Interview in a way that I myself cannot conceive, or that Miss Rand had one of her heroes deviate from her views on the proper role of sex. Neither of these sound plausible to me, while my analysis of the "rape scene" strikes me as unproblematic and quite consistent with all that I know.

[ADS 0]

Further evidence supporting my position:

Remember when, in the middle of the novel, Roark let Dominique leave him, because he refused to have her until she became the kind of woman he wanted? Here is the relevant passage:

I've given you, not my sacrifice or my pity, but my ego and my naked need. This is the only way you can wish to be loved. This is the only way I can want you to love me. If you married me now, I would become your whole existence. But I would not want you then. You would not want yourself—and so you would not love me long. To say 'I love you' one must know first how to say the 'I.' The kind of surrender I could have from you now would give me nothing but an empty hulk.

And, I remember later in the novel, when Roark and Dominique met each other in person, she wanted to sleep with him but Roark still refused. (I can't find this passage at the moment, but I'll keep looking.)

Again, this is just further evidence that Roark's standard for whom he would have sex with was just as high as the one I'm ascribing to him.

[Ed from OC 0]

First of all, Dominique and Roark were actually right for eachother.

←

How do they know that? What does each observe about the other? What is clear from the text is that they were highly, highly attracted to each other. First is the immediate lust. Then she tests him to see if she can control him, and he proves to be more than she can handle. His confidence, his skill at playing with her come across to her as the epitome of masculinity. But notice she explicitly wishes he were a criminal, and is excited by the prospect of seeing him being whipped. This is not your typical get-to-know-you first date!

But she doesn't know anything about him. She knows nothing about his philosophy, his career, etc. She can't say whether he is an alcoholic or a drug abuser or a criminal. She doesn't even know his name! I think these are explicit indications of a lack of knowledge on her part, despite what she can infer from the "foreplay."

Now Roark may know quite a bit more about her, once he finds out her name. He can infer quite a bit from that, and it is conceivable that he knows a little about her from working for her father and knowing the industry.

But the details are not clear on that. For example, if all he knows is that she's a rich heiress of an architect, Roark can't tell whether she could be the type to run around with Paris Hilton, or an up-and-coming architect in her own right, or someone of the Lois Cook persuasion.

He tests her by sending the Italian guy to fix the fireplace. Her reaction tells him that she doesn't want just anyone; she has a burning desire for him, specifically. Does that tell him anything more? Maybe a little, but it's hardly a resume's worth of information.

My point is that my understanding of the whole sequence (from first encounter to the "rape" scene) is largely a building crescendo of desire between the two. They play back and forth, without kid gloves, building up a vivid illumination of their attraction. But it is largely just a mutual attraction. The point is they don't know a whole lot about each other. Neither has a conscious choice to pursue a long-term relationship: she struggles to resist finding out his name; he is surprised, upon leaving for New York, that he's even thinking about her.

What does Roark see in this sequence that tells him about her character?

What does Dominique see that tells her about his character?

I think there is some more that can be filled in, but it's time in this thread to be explicit about what they see and what that says about the character of the person they're observing.

P.S.: Helen: terrific post, I agree with you. Stephen: another great post.

[Bill Bucko 0]

Isn't the whole answer to this Roark-Dominique situation that Miss Rand just had them glean more about each other, in their various conversations and meetings, than would probably have been realistic in a non-fiction setting?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes. Love at first sight is common in literature but rarer in real life. Fiction writers stylize reality.

I remember reading that someone asked Miss Rand where she got the idea for the sex scenes in The Fountainhead. She replied: "Wishful thinking!"

[Stephen Speicher 0]

... would you say that Roark had good reason -- not certainty or full knowledge, but just good reason -- to believe that Dominique would end up being his life partner?

Roark did not see Dominique again at the quarry after taking her, and he left the quarry after almost a week. As Roark leaves the quarry, we hear his thoughts on the train.

Half an hour later Roark was on a train. When the train started moving, he remembered Dominique and that he was leaving her behind. The thought seemed distant and unimportant. He was astonished only to know that he still thought of her, even now.

That doesn't sound to me like thinking about "his life partner."

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Further evidence supporting my position:

Remember when, in the middle of the novel ...

We've been talking about what happened at the quarry, not later in the middle of the novel.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Isn't the whole answer to this Roark-Dominique situation that Miss Rand just had them glean more about each other, in their various conversations and meetings, than would probably have been realistic in a non-fiction setting?

Yes. Love at first sight is common in literature but rarer in real life. Fiction writers stylize reality.

Or live it.

Each morning, in the dimness of predawn, she hurried from the Studio Club in order to be on the set by six o'clock. One morning, she boarded a streetcar as usual for the long ride to the studio in Culver City. She looked out the window for a few minutes. Then she glanced across the aisle.

He was tall and slender; a strand of fair hair fell over his forehead; he wore an open shirt, and slacks over long legs. The skin of his face was taut against high cheekbones. His mouth was long and thin. His eyes were a cold, clear blue. He was half-dozing, his body relaxed with the boneless elegance of a cat.

She felt a shock of astonishment—a sense almost of recognition—and an emotion of such intensity that she could not know if it was pleasure or pain. She knew that if she were a painter and were asked to put on canvas her own private vision of the perfect human face and figure, it would be this face and this figure that she would struggle to create. She felt as if she were chained to her seat—or chained to him—urable to move.

Then she felt the jolt of a sudden terror: he would get off the streetcar, and she would never learn who he was. Desperately, she tried to think of an excuse to speak to him.

The streetcar reached Culver City. She saw him rise, get off—and walk toward the studio gate. She dashed to the dressing rooms to change into her costume. He was the first person she saw when she reached the set. He wore a short tunic and sandals, and a Roman scarf over his hair; he was an actor playing a bit part in The King of Kings.

She watched him all that day as he moved through the crowded set. Perhaps he would talk to someone, she thought —someone whom she knew, who could introduce her. But he spoke to no one. Between takes, he sat alone. His manner was aloof, suggesting a serene, confident self-sufficiency. Once, she sat beside him for a moment on a flight of stairs. She thought of nothing but of how she could meet him— and that she had to meet him.

One afternoon, a few days later, during the rehearsals of a mob scene, the extras were told to mill about the set— which represented a street in Jerusalem—while the actors were given specific assignments and a pattern of action to follow. She watched carefully as he was given his instructions. During the shooting of the scene, she made her way toward him—and stepped directly into his path. He stumbled over her foot. He apologized, and they began talking. Afterward, she could not remember what they had said, only that his name was Frank O'Connor.

When she arrived on the set the next day, he was not there. She learned that the scenes in which he was working had been completed. She did not know where he lived; his name was not listed in the telephone book; the casting office refused to release the addresses of actors; the few people with whom she was acquainted could not help her. He had vanished, and she knew of no way to find him.

There were times, in the months that followed, when she felt, despairingly, that she would never see him again. But beyond the reach of any painful emotion was a quiet, steady source of serenity: the conviction that she would discover some way to find him, even if she did not yet know how.

[...]

On a summer day in 1927, she went to interview the superintendent of a construction job on Hollywood Boulevard, as research for a story de Mille had assigned to her. The superintendent had been detained, and she decided to wait in a nearby public library. She entered the library—and stood motionless. Sitting at a table, reading, was Frank O'Connor. She had not seen him for nine months. He looked up, and smiled in recognition.

He led her outside into the summer afternoon. They walked aimlessly—and talked purposefully. They discussed movies and writing and acting and what they intended to do in the future; they talked eagerly, without strain and with no sense of being strangers. By the end of the day, she knew that what she had seen in his face, that first morning on the streetcar, she now had found in his character. She had found the man of first-hand values, of independent judgment—of unborrowed soul. She had found her spiritual ally, who saw the world as she saw it.

[ADS 0]

That doesn't sound to me  like thinking about "his life partner."

←

First, I wasn't speaking about Roark's (initial) intent to make Dominique his life partner, but just about what sort of evidence was available to him at the time of the "rape scene" that she could be his life partner, regardless of when/how he cognitively processed this evidence. Second, as I said prior, any talk about anyone making anyone their life partner has not been part of my central position in this thread: I've been consistently speaking in terms of the "highest values," and I am leaving open what exact correlation this has with life partnership. (And I only said something about life partnership because you asked about it.)

Stephen, are you maintaining that when Roark had sex with Dominique, he was not doing it on the basis of the highest values that one can find in a human being? This question gets at the crux of my position, and I'm interested to hear your exact take on it in light of my recent posts, even if only for the purpose of our agreeing to disagree.

We've been talking about what happened at the quarry, not later in the middle of the novel.

But what happened at the quarry has to be integrated with the rest of the novel, does it not?

[Free Capitalist 0]

Why is there this conflation of a one night stand with necessarily having sex on the basis of something other than the highest values that one can find in a human being?

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Stephen, are you maintaining that when Roark had sex with Dominique, he was not doing it on the basis of the highest values that one can find in a human being?

I do not like your wording, but I believe Roark (and Miss Rand) make the meaning perfectly clear. After the evening that Roark took Dominique:

Roark awakened in the morning and thought that last night had been like a point reached, like a stop in the movement of his life. He was moving forward for the sake of such stops; like the moments when he had walked through the half-finished Heller house; like last night. In some unstated way, last night had been what building was to him; in some quality of reaction within him, in what it gave to his consciousness of existence.

And here is the meaning of "like the moments when he had walked through the half-finished Heller house."

There were moments when something rose within him, not a thought nor a feeling, but a wave of some physical violence, and then he wanted to stop, to lean back, to feel the reality of his person heightened by the frame of steel that rose dimly about the bright, outstanding existence of his body as its center. He did not stop. He went on calmly. But his hands betrayed what he wanted to hide. His hands reached out, ran slowly down the beams and joints. The workers in the house had noticed it. They said: "That guy's in love with the thing. He can't keep his hands off."

I put these two quotes together and I see Roark with a kind of love towards Dominique that represents what she could become, just as was his response to the "beams and joints" of the "half-finished Heller house." (Emphasis mine.)

[dcyphyr 0]

Hello all, I have just spent (literally) all night reading this thread. If I seem sleepy, I am. It contained questions that are currently a part of my life, decisions I need to make before an upcoming event so I think it was worth it.

I would like to voice my opinion before I sleep lest my less-than-perfect memory betrays me once again. First of all, since nobody here (except carrie/free spirit) knows me at all I would like to make clear what I am and am not.

I am not an expert on objectivism( by my standards).

I am only 22( i'm not saying thats something for me to be ashamed of).

I have not been married( though almost).

I have not been in a love or sex relationship with more than one person at a time- I have been in both with one person.

In youth I have been in relationships with less than ideal women-those that fall into that category where destructive to me and I regret that destruction.

Also, I,ve been unable to return to someone less ideal after being in a relationship with someone more ideal.

I underestimated the importance of my ideals early in my life.

This is my second post here- ever, I think.-if I am in any way rude, etc, that is not my intention, please call me on it in lieu of forgiving it or I will never learn. I tell you this so you know I have not tried all sides of this argument in my life. I have chosen one side, due to reasons that in essence I'm not sure I ever framed as a moral dilemma such as you have.

This is my choice and my reason. I have chosen to hold my sexual attraction exclusively for the the most ideal person I can imagine being worthy of for the sole purpose of increasing its value to the both of us.There are actual physical reasons this raises its value to each of us, but some examples for her side could be... two of which I can think of but there may be more.

1- pregnancy, condoms sometimes fail, as does birth control- I don't want anyone to have a child of mine against my wishes, or force my hand in this way, neither would she-( my own).

2- std's I don't think anyone wants to speak of this but its a fact, if you want to make sure ..absolutely sure as you can, that you remain free of any diseases there is no more sure way I am aware of.

These things add value to me as a sexual partner, however, my primary reason for wanting it to mean so much is because I know there is no greater pleasure given to man than sex. I want sex to mean as much as it can, I want as much pleasure as possible and nothing heightens it more than connecting it to values, which means making it rare.The more values you connect it to, the more rare it will be.

I would rather wait for as long as it takes and have it mean the sum of all of that patience and most importantly- all of those values.I could easily have a decent person to have sex with often, but I know I would forget most of it, that , beyond the moments pleasure , I would not be profoundly affected. I want to be profoundly affected ,I want it to be unforgettable-every time.

I choose quality over quantity for my life experiences.I know I have actual health needs, but they're nothing I cant handle. I don't know if my views are moral by objectivism's rules.What I do know, is if this issue was moral either way - this is what I would chose. I think my way is morally correct, but that is not my reason, not my selfish motive. Morality is a consequence of my selfishness , not the other way around.

If you don't agree, then I hope one of us is right.Try your best to convince me.Ideas are like living creatures , variation keeps any one flaw from destroying them all. As a belief our ideas may never be absolutely perfect but I wish we could put more effort into showing how proud we are of what were doing and have done. My first post eckos my thoughts in regards to all this ,strangly.

Its the "other names for bf/gf" thread

heres part......................................................hence, I can think of nothing more fitting for someone I love than to call them my own. she would be my own as my hands or my eyes are my own- just below the point of being the same being.

If someone meant just less than that then they are brothers and sisters of the soul but their love is not worthy of my physical attraction.A love greater than this cannot be, for to love someone more than you love yourself is to pull the foundation from a building to use as the final boards to complete it.

I realize using this consistently would draw attention and raise questions. While that in itself is not a valid reason to use this terminology it surly is no reason not to. It could perhaps even draw others to you who understand the world as you do, and that , is something to value for all the most selfish reasons.

I wrote this before I read this thread. Interesting how it correllated isn't it?

[ADS 0]

I put these two quotes together and I see Roark with a kind of love towards Dominique that represents what she could become, just as was his response to the "beams and joints" of the "half-finished Heller house." (Emphasis mine.)

←

Very nice post, Stephen. I think this is a helpful way to look at how Roark viewed Dominique, although I'm curious why you think that this explanation is somehow against the idea they had sex on the basis of their highest values. Even though Dominique didn't completely understand the nature of independence, heroism, and the worship thereof, it was nevertheless those values that brought them together, and thus formed the basis for their encounter.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

I would rather wait for as long as it takes and have it mean the sum of all of that patience and most importantly- all of those values.I could easily have a decent person to have sex with often, but I know I would forget most of it, that , beyond the moments pleasure , I would not be profoundly affected.      I want to be profoundly affected ,I want it to be unforgettable-every time.

I just want to say, without further discussion of this, what a lovely and very personal way you expressed yourself here. Rather than just adherence to a very abstract notion, you expressed the meaning that it holds for you.

Morality is a consequence of my selfishness , not the other way around.

Taken literally, I am not sure what this means. If you mean that it is in your self-interest to act with a proper morality, then with that I would agree. But you say that morality is a "consequence of my selfishness" (emphasis mine), and I am not sure in what way that is true. Can you explain?

[dcyphyr 0]

I just want to say, without further discussion of this, what a lovely and very personal way you expressed yourself here. Rather than just adherence to a very abstract notion, you expressed the meaning that it holds for you.

Taken literally, I am not sure what this means. If you mean that it is in your self-interest to act with a proper morality, then with that I would agree. But you say that morality is a "consequence of my selfishness" (emphasis mine), and I am not sure in what way that is true. Can you explain?

←

Thank you very much Mr. Speicher

You have been very helpful, and understanding with me and I am honored by your compliment, as are you.

In speaking with free spirit I summed this up as getting what you pay for.My meaning could be stated as," The more meaning sex holds for you the more abstract it becomes."I do not yet know wether sex held to a lesser standard than mine is immoral, I do know -that I find it lesser.

My standard for valueing sex is its ability to help me feel pleasure.My standard for valueing pleasure is its ability to help me grow. My standard for valueing growth is its ability to help me live.

-for instance, you might ask what I mean by grow, "what kind of growth?".I would say, " I mean, the kind that sustains life, as opposed to a cancer."

I would not tell someone that they should wait for sex because its immoral. I would tell them they should wait because its worth it.

If it is worth it to me, it is moral, if its not , it would be a sacrifice- hence immoral. You get what you pay for: special good sex or rare awesome sex.

My choice, but I can't have both .( note that special and rare don't necessarily denote frequency.)

oh, thank you. I was wrong there. Morality is not a consequence of selfishness. They are the same.

Yes, it could be stated as that, "It is in my self interest to act with a proper morality". However, it could be stated that," It is in my morality to act with a proper self-interest." Isn't self interest moral? Isn't morality self interested?

They hold an axiomatic relationship , I think.

I was seeking to to express that my choice here stemmed primarily from my own experience. I mistakenly gave the word selfishness a closer relationship to myself than morality. A ghost of christianity , I'm ashamed to say.

To all: I think that my choice on this matter is moral. If you do not find me worthy of agreement I don't think any amount of proclaiming you to be immoral will make my ideas more valid to you. Fear is never a motivation for the selfish.I will say though..

The more exclusive your physical response is the more it is worth to those worthy of it.If that implies the question," is it worth the wait?" then I would answer," the wait only makes it worth more."

There is a level of joy you can gain by this which you can gain no other way

and I ,for one, do not think there is a level of joy you should not experience.

[Inspector 0]

The more exclusive your physical response is the more it is worth to those worthy of it.If that implies the question," is it worth the wait?" then I would answer," the wait only makes it worth more."

←

...whoa. Yes. YES. THAT is one of my big points here that I don't think I have expressed enough. THANK YOU.

By waiting for your "one," you can give him or her a bigger/better gift. That's the whole idea behind an exclusive sexual relationship anyway, so why not extend it that next step to its logical conclusion?

[Free Capitalist 0]

The Inspector, if you say that then you have changed your argument entirely. I might as well express my agreement with you here: it is absolutely true that in most cases, for most people, "it is worth the wait" and therefore I would not advise a life of one-night stands for them, regardless of how virtuous the women are that they sleep with. But this is not a moral issue anymore, it is a life advice issue: "wait for the special one-and-only-one, and in the end it will be that much more enjoyable." You apparently have tried to turn a life advice into a moral precept: "wait for the special one-and-only-one, otherwise you're promiscuous and immoral". That is what I at least have been arguing against all along: that on moral grounds, your argument does not stand (however in terms of life advice, I very much agree with it).

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Isn't self interest moral? Isn't morality self interested?

They hold an axiomatic relationship , I think.

←

The notion of self-interest is an aspect of morality, a part which specifies who should benefit from man's actions. But "self-interest" does not itself define the ethical principles and values of a particular morality. A criminal can claim that he benefits from stealing and is therefor acting in his self-interest, but his moral code is certainly different from that of Objectivism. (Which reminds me: please use a capital "O" for Objectivism. Objectivism is the name given to Ayn Rand's philosophy. With a small "o" it means something else.)

Also, neither "self-interest" nor "morality" itself is to be taken as axiomatic. One of Ayn Rand's great accomplishments was establishing the rational basis for morality. See Miss Rand's essay "The Objectivist Ethics," reprinted in the book The Virtue of Selfishness.

[RayK 0]

Should then one wait for the greatest value on all levels and entities? Should one wait until they find the best pizza, car, house, job and everything else until you somehow "know" that it is the right one? Or should one get the best in relationship to their priorities of values. Another question, how can one give the best they have to give the first time you do it? I have almost always in every level gotten better at something the more I understood about it, hence learning as I went along. Also, why can you only have one or the other? I do not remember anyone stating that you could not have great and profound sex often. What about the people that are married and sex often, is it somehow less profound because it is not "rare"? Can you state that exactly what you hold as a value today is what you will hold as a value 20 years from now? If not would you call yourself immoral for changing your morals and ethics

One of the greatest things about Objectivist Ethics is that one sets their own moral standards. So If one wants to wait for ever or close to it, so be it. Or you can set your standards in every field according to your own morality, because as Ayn Rand said " The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live."

Again, I do not think anyone here is recommending valueless sex, but sex tied to your own values, and tied to reality.

[Inspector 0]

The Inspector, if you say that then you have changed your argument entirely.

←

It was not my intention to change my argument. What is the essential distinction between a moral argument an a life-advice argument?

The only actions which don't fall under moral judgment are those which are optional, at least that is what I thought.

Are you saying that it is good advice, but only optional and not immoral to do otherwise?

I'll stop my questions there, and try to understand those basics first before delving deeper.

[Inspector 0]

One of the greatest things about Objectivist Ethics is that one sets their own moral standards.  So If one wants to wait for ever or close to it, so be it.  Or you can set your standards in every field according to your own morality, because as Ayn Rand said " The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live." 

←

This is the third time I have heard you speak in what looks to me like very subjectivist terms. It is possible, I suppose, that you are simply mis-speaking... but....

Objectivist ethics are set with REALITY and FACT as the standard, not whatever one chooses to set them at. Do you agree with that?

[RayK 0]

Inspector,

That which enhances life is the good, and that which does not is bad. I do not see how sex with someone you value, according to your standards is subjective. If it was "sex with who ever and I do not know why", that would be subjective. Know your standards and values and be able to explain why, even if only to yourself, that is objective.