Freedomain Radio

I thought I had this all figured out from the Objectivist perspective but on further reflection I can see I'm coming up philosophically short when it comes to the philosophy of sex. Thismorning I listened to FDR792 (polyamorism) and FDR 826 (casual sex) and got some affirming sentiments toward Objectivism's teaching. That is, that the sex act is a celebration of oneself, the highest emotional reward for living the good life, and one's partner ought to be selected on the basis of rational values one identifies and defends. There is a biological basis for human sexuality but it is transfigured by our rational nature to serve a higher function than its base equivalent in the natural world.

But here's some new material...

The above applies within the context of adults living in a free society. There are many other cases in which sex of a lesser order can be proper. To cite just one example, you cannot expect a teenager who is first experimenting with sex to abstain until he finds someone who shares his serious values, because for him making love may be crucial to discovering what his serious values are. http://www.leonardpeikoff.com/

What the hell! Why didn't THAT make it into his "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand???" Likewise,

I also think, that, let's face it, you DO want the company of females (or even just one) for sexual release.   You know it and believe me,
they know it too.  

You really can't get to know them until you have them - especially when you're young.  All you can think about is having sex with them.
Once you've had sex with them, you can have that and, if you want, have some sort of relationship with them. 

Also as a side note:  Sex =/= Relationship  100% of the time.  It's a physical function first, and an emotional one second.  Fighting nature isnt going to work out all that well ;)

These are exactly the sorts of claims (including Peikoff's!!) that Objectivism would sweep away as corruption of virtue. Degradation of sex. Good and rational boys and girls ought to control their sex drive and subordinate it to this principle. (the above quotes come from this link: http://freedomainradio.com/board/forums/t/10172.aspx?PageIndex=2)

After all, these things only have the power of mere assertions. And against FDR792 we have http://sexisfunradioshow.blogspot.com/2006/03/sex-is-fun-18-open-relationships.html this interesting podcast recorded by polyamorous men and women. They make rational and measured podcasts and I listened to this one expecting them to perhaps break down and degenerate into the Portrait of Dorian Grey at any second. They never did! Seems that they're happy and healthy, as happy and healthy as our Canadian host!

But talk about mere assertions, what more than that are the ones given to us by FDR and Objectivism? No formal attempt is actually made to reveal how sex fits into our moral lives. It's just sentiment. The fact that it may or may not appeal to us may not be in our nature,  it may be a result of our upbringing. Perhaps we are fools to do it at all, or fools to do it to any objective norm. If we do feel guilty or happy, why suppose that these feelings are not the entrainment of every parent and movie we've been brainwashed by rather than a perfect signal from our objective nature?

Why is sex nothing more to us than to the animals? What dangerous alchemy, if any, do we tempt when we become sexual? Is the desire for exclucive intimacy the signal emotion from an instinctive conscience that cannot lie or is it an accidental engram handed down to us in the Testament of an ancient and small community of nomadic shepheards? If I can love each of my new children as well as the last, why not do the same for romance? Elvis had scores of girls and when asked how he could be like that he said "They're all different." Is intimacy a zero-sum game as Marxists say economic welfare is?

That's my question. If I get answers to it please let them be more than further unsupported assertions and sentiments, I've already got a large enough collection. What's needed here is a formal philosophy and at the moment, I must admit, I would have difficulty producing one if asked.

This is an interesting question for sure. I like Stef's metaphor that casual sex is like junk food for the soul. It wont do much damage if you have it once in a while, but if its a steady diet, then it will start to cause problems. I think you could probably extend that from casual sex to include sex with partners who lack virtue in some fundamental way. Sex as a teenager is a normal part of exploration and growing up, so I would probably agree that during your phase of growth and experimentation choosing a partner with great rational values is not quite as important, because you probably havent defined your values hugely well by that age either.

I can speak though as a 23 year old virgin, who has completely avoided relationships in the past due to psychological issues, which is a slightly different than the normal perspective than most. I, of course, dislike the issues that I had during my teen years that lead to this isolation in terms of relationships, and in the past I have also thought of it as a negative that I didn't have sex earlier, but now I have a new perspective on things. I know that now I am going to get to share that experience for the first time with a woman chosen based on the very best of values. I know that I will be able to share that experience with someone who I can have  a mature, adult, respectful, reciprocal and meaningful relationship with. I am excited about this in the future, and I am really glad that I have waited and am able to explore this side of myself with someone who I deeply care about, and who deeply cares about me.

Sorry, no philisophical proofs from me, but just my perspective on the issue. I hope its of some help.

Well, I think that these are very interesting questions to answer -- and many a philosophical movement has foundered on the problem of sexuality -  usually on the grounds of sexual repression.

The reason I think that sexuality is more important for human beings than it is for animals is that we require abstract values in order to raise our children, since we are rational animals, not just instinctual ones. A seagull chick would not be very healthy if one parent commanded it to fly, and another parent commanded it to swim -- in the same way, a child should be raised with rational and consistent values.

Thus our choice of sexual partners does have something to do with compatible value systems. Casual sex does not necessarily fall into this category, but certainly the success of our choice of life partners is heavily dependent upon our values, for better or worse.

Yes Ash, or maybe you're going to be waiting until the end of time to reach that holy grail. And perhaps you will and will only then realise that it's been a false norm from the start you've been brainwashed into accepting in the absence of any reason or philosophical proofs!

We're supposed to be able to name and defend our values aren't we? And if this is one of them you and I are both in trouble.

And I think what Steph has said is right about life partners. But that's something that only has a passing contact with this issue, sex. And surely what we want here is a philosophical explaination here, not a biological one. We require abstract values in order to live our lives, be free and happy, not so that we will be at the disposal of rearing our spawn!

Thanks for taking a look-in lads. I hope we can find the answers one of these days.

Rick Giles:

And I think what Steph has said is right about life partners. But that's something that only has a passing contact with this issue, sex. And surely what we want here is a philosophical explaination here, not a biological one. We require abstract values in order to live our lives, be free and happy, not so that we will be at the disposal of rearing our spawn!

Two questions for you:

1. What is a "philosophical explanation" and why does it trump a mere "biological" one?

2. Is choosing a woman with whom you would be comfortable raising kids (being "at the disposal of rearing our spawn") mutually exclusive with choosing a woman with whom you can be free and happy? I would have thought quite the opposite.

Matters philosophical are those that describe the fundamental nature of our experiences. Philosophy gives a basis for persuit of science, such as biology which is to philosophy what accounting is to mathematics. It would be impossible for any science, such as biology, to refute its own philosophical foundation but perfectly proper for philosophy to determine, and trump, any propositions biological. And since man is a rational animal he needs to be told what's right and wrong through ethical arguments, not biological imperitives. If biology tells you to mate while your moral conscience says to resist which trumps which?

You're right that these two imperitives are not always mutually exclusive. But sometimes they are, and in all such cases rational freedom and happiness must come first. So the correct way to go forward is to think only of this, rational and philosophical, because all other imperitives bend before it.

I wish I could be alive when transhuman intelligence exists, so me and the AI could have a big ol' laugh at these debates.

What sex you ought to have depends on what you want out of it, and more generally, of life.  Right now the only arguments against sex with anyone who catches you fancy are:

1. Disease.
2. Evolutionary behavioural conceits.
3. Unwanted children.
4. Social conformism

All of these are problems derived from human weakness.  To give into jealousy and mindless judgement seems to me more justifiabled in reason than to give into envy towards the wealthy and hatred towards the strange.  It's a stupid habit and we all need to become tremendously wealthy and get rid of these essentially medical problems and those of us without problems 2 and 4 can get on with our lives in peace.

Thankyou, I admire your confidence.

I think you're right that there is a strong relationship between what sex you ought to have and what you want out of life. Trouble is that there is precious little being said about what that relation is. Do you know?

If sex is an emotional reward for shared values then one devalues his virtues and someone else's at the same time by having sex in the absense of shared values. Having sex with anyone who catches your fancy describes that situation.

If sex has any moral significance (and all human action does) then it can only be found in intimacy- which is the confluence of shared values. That's my counter claim to what you say. But it would reduce, in your language, to "behavioural conceit" or "social conformism" rather than metaphysical fact. Indeed, intimacy is also to be known as mindless judgement, stupid habit, and a medical problem!

As near as I can tell you have abandoned all metaphysical meaning for sex and rendered it a morally neutral human action. That means we can have Judas sex with anybody any time without impact (save perhaps for 1-4) on our values, neither to affirm them nor to reject them. Sexual friction of mucous membranes seems not to matter much beyond what really good chocolate could aim at.

Rick Giles:

 

You're right that these two imperitives are not always mutually exclusive. But sometimes they are, and in all such cases rational freedom and happiness must come first. So the correct way to go forward is to think only of this, rational and philosophical, because all other imperitives bend before it.

Your post brought up two more questions for me:

What exactly is the philosophical imperative in choosing a mate?

Which would be the cases in which the biological imperative (which I take to include not only a functioning womb - most any woman of a certain age has one of those - but the emotional and psychological makeup and the virtue to raise children WELL) is mutually exclusive with the philosophical one?

I hope I'm not being entirely annoying, but I AM trying to understand your arguments more fully.

Well I hope there's a pay-off in the form of answers if you find you accept the questions!

Firstly, as we gleen from Steff and the seagulls, there needs to be a double-coinsidence of values. Friendship is a recognition of common values, the more of these values between friends there are and greater degree in which they are common determines the level of intimacy. Romantic relationships are only the extreme end of intimacy, an excellent pairing of two persons of like values systems who will, as a result, reinforce their values for one another and experience the emotional reward (or penalty) associated with them. Selecting a mate could be a mechanical task adverse to these values (think of battery hens) but that would at the same time deprive one of the enjoyment of one's values even as it undermined them. A disaster like that would also fail to provide the necessasary conditions for a strong family and well-raised children.

Hope it's evident that this is a philosophical explaination, derived from man's nature as a value-orientated rational being.

So, the questions becomes, when does biology/psychology clash with our values?

In FDR 243 Steph illustrates how sex drive and sexual attractiveness are largely biological and can frequently conflict with true values reasons for forming a relationship. eg. When it comes to self-esteem, justice, and benevolence you may as well be going out with Adolf Hitler but you overlook this because he's ritch and sexy.

What say you value intimacy? But because of a childhood trauma you are afraid of spiders or heights or telephones or touching people and letting them touch you. How can you practise a rational value if you give priority to a phobia that contradicts it?

Third example, suppose rationality is a ruling value for you but you enter a relationship with someone who is hooked on unhealthy gambling and smoking. Which of these prevails and which gives in to the other, the biological or the moral value that contradicts it?

Over to you.

rick giles:

If sex has any moral significance (and all human action does)

This part stood out like a sore thumb to me. Treat me as if I'm five but, can you tell me how things like deciding to take the trash out, taking a taxi, riding a bus, and eating can have moral significance?

ash:

This is an interesting question for sure. I like Stef's metaphor that casual sex is like junk food for the soul. It wont do much damage if you have it once in a while, but if its a steady diet, then it will start to cause problems.

Why does reading this give me a mild urge to post a sarcistic remark referencing that other topic relating to sex? =9

Rick Giles:

 

Firstly, as we gleen from Steff and the seagulls, there needs to be a double-coinsidence of values. Friendship is a recognition of common values, the more of these values between friends there are and greater degree in which they are common determines the level of intimacy. Romantic relationships are only the extreme end of intimacy, an excellent pairing of two persons of like values systems who will, as a result, reinforce their values for one another and experience the emotional reward (or penalty) associated with them. Selecting a mate could be a mechanical task adverse to these values (think of battery hens) but that would at the same time deprive one of the enjoyment of one's values even as it undermined them. A disaster like that would also fail to provide the necessasary conditions for a strong family and well-raised children.

The biological and philosophical imperative are one and the same here. The moral imperative is to find someone to mate with and with whom to have a strong family and well-raised children. Philosophy informs this choice. I do not think our views contradict each other on this one.

In FDR 243 Steph illustrates how sex drive and sexual attractiveness are largely biological and can frequently conflict with true values reasons for forming a relationship. eg. When it comes to self-esteem, justice, and benevolence you may as well be going out with Adolf Hitler but you overlook this because he's ritch and sexy.

I'm not sure it could be said that it was biological imperative which drove Eva Braun to desire Hitler. Certainly, mating with a sociopathic and patently insane mass-murderer is not an optimal condition for a stable family and children. The philosophical imperative is also against mating with such a monster. Hence, the two are not mutually exclusive here.

What say you value intimacy? But because of a childhood trauma you are afraid of spiders or heights or telephones or touching people and letting them touch you. How can you practise a rational value if you give priority to a phobia that contradicts it?

This is why we term phobias as mental illness. The biological imperative is to do things that further our life, and further the successful living of that life. Phobias restrict us from doing things to further our life - and run against the biological imperative. Therefore, it cannot be said that the biological and philosophical imperative are at odds here.

Third example, suppose rationality is a ruling value for you but you enter a relationship with someone who is hooked on unhealthy gambling and smoking. Which of these prevails and which gives in to the other, the biological or the moral value that contradicts it?

If rationality is truly a ruling value for a person, such a relationship has a much smaller chance of occurring - if it does at all. Again, mating with someone who is of an addictive and unstable nature runs against both the biological and philosophical imperatives.

All I'm saying, my friend, is that the biological and philosophical are not mutually exclusive. You seem to prefer - that is, it's aesthetically more pleasing for you - to believe that the philosophical imperative is the end-all and be-all in determining with whom you have sex. I contend rather that the biological and philosophical imperatives are one and the same - or at least not mutually exclusive. Philosophy provides a framework for determining with whom one is most likely to have a long-term, stable relationship, but the need for such a relationship is biologically based.

Does this make sense at all? I do not think our views are actually very far apart, all things considered.

 This part stood out like a sore thumb to me. Treat me as if I'm five but, can you tell me how things like deciding to take the trash out, taking a taxi, riding a bus, and eating can have moral significance?

Every breath you take, every move you make, every bond you break, every step you take is making your life better or worse, however slighly. No?

Selecting a mate could be a mechanical task adverse to these values (think of battery hens) but that would at the same time deprive one of the enjoyment of one's values even as it undermined them

The biological and philosophical imperative are one and the same here.

Far from it. The philosophical imperitive I described has no necessasary connection with the flesh. After all, we have free will to accept or reject the philosophy with our actions. Philosophy is the voice of truth, but biology is the voice of 3 million years of evolutionary development. If the two were always in concert there wouldn't be any need for values!

Certainly, mating with a sociopathic and patently insane mass-murderer is not an optimal condition for a stable family and children. The philosophical imperative is also against mating with such a monster. Hence, the two are not mutually exclusive here

He's attractive, he's got money and important friends, international respect and keen fashion sense, and not a neglibible amount of power. What box does that not tick for a woman in heat? Take values out of the equation and there's nothing stopping you.

The biological imperative is to do things that further our life, and further the successful living of that life.

Sure, but only within the limited perview of biological life. This reduces to the same in all animals with only different species variations. That is, to hatch and grow and reproduce before you die. The highest cause for biology is species replication, but the highest cause in rational philosophy is individual happiness.

Again, mating with someone who is of an addictive and unstable nature runs against both the biological and philosophical imperatives.

Nevertheless, it is the scenario I have presented you to answer and not an unheard of predicament in the world.

I contend rather that the biological and philosophical imperatives are one and the same - or at least not mutually exclusive. Philosophy provides a framework for determining with whom one is most likely to have a long-term, stable relationship, but the need for such a relationship is biologically based.

Well I strongly disagree that they are the same thing and anybody who ever experienced an ambivalance between their head and their heart knows I'm right. And it hasn't escaped my attention that there are some good-looking women around who manage to simultaneously have as much grasp of rational values as their counterparts in a butterfly zoo. 

You put biology first, with all man's inventions and arts in the intellectual and material world as ends to having sex! Are not Apollo 13, the Magna Carta, Objectivism, and bubble gum owed to a higher purpose than the sexual friction of mucous membranes?

Sorry, I'm not particularly enjoying this conversation, or particularly keen to respond. Make of that what you will.

1. Disease.
2. Evolutionary behavioural conceits.
3. Unwanted children.
4. Social conformism

Oh man, and that's only the tip of the iceburg... bad relationships are B-A-D.