RoR: Forum

Double post. Sorry.

(Edited by Matthew Humphreys on 9/16, 2:43am)

Post 21

Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 2:42am

Ok, triple post. <Sigh>

(Edited by Matthew Humphreys on 9/16, 2:44am)

Post 22

Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 3:08am

Triple post, huh? That's what comes from being a Diabolical Dialectical groupie - *all* mistakes are made in dialectical triplicate. Hahaha!

What did I say that you think you might not have understood correctly, Matt?

Post 23

Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 5:07am

I'm blaming the technology - it didn't seem to have posted it the first time, so I clicked "post" again ;-)

From post 1 in this thread:

Just to clarify this, are you saying that in certain circumstances it might be appropriate to embark on a purely sexual relationship with someone we feel absolutely nothing for beyond the physical?

Post 24

Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 9:31am

Alec,

I don't see how "learning that there are such things as Latinas and Asians" has anything to do with learning a desire for either one.

That is not at all unusual. Most people go through life driven by passions and desires they do not know the reason, cause, or meaning of and assuming that is the state of all people, make no effort to understand them. You can be comforted by the fact most people would agree with you.

Please do not take this as anything more than a statement of fact. I do not know how to help those who have decided their feelings cause their behavior and have desire to discover why they have the feelings they do.

Regi

Post 25

Friday, September 17, 2004 - 2:08am

MH - you asked:

"Just to clarify this, are you saying that in certain circumstances it might be appropriate to embark on a purely sexual relationship with someone we feel absolutely nothing for beyond the physical?"

First of all, you shouldn't be asking me this. You do not need *my* permission to embark on such a project! :-)

But, since you *are* asking, I would say, go for it!! As long as no deceit is involved, I'm all in favour of recreational sex for its own sake. It's not the highest form of sex possible to us, which is sex combined with the deepest, most passionately-felt love, but in its own terms (context) is absolutely legitimate & delicious, & much better than *no* sex.

In this regard, just wait till you see the upcoming FreeRad, where Nathaniel Branden quotes Ayn Rand as endorsing precisely the view I've just expressed! :-)

Linz

Post 26

Friday, September 17, 2004 - 2:28am

Linz,

Thanks for the response. I must point out that I was merely asking you to clarify your opinion, not seeking your permission to do anything (which I agree would be inappropriate!) :-p

I don't know if this is what Dr Branden talks about but I do recall reading something about Rand saying that friendship with sex was acceptable and Peikoff being totally shocked (having apparently thought that it was a straight choice between deepest romance or nothing).

Personally I would think there needs to be something beyond pure physical attraction, if only a broadly compatible SOL - i.e. an ambitious girl (or guy) would be fair game, a brainless slut wouldn't. But to insist that sex always occur within the context of a deep romance (as some other posters here seem to be doing) certainly borders on rationalistic idealism.

MH

Post 27

Friday, September 17, 2004 - 2:50am

Matt - you wrote: "But to insist that sex always occur within the context of a deep romance (as some other posters here seem to be doing) certainly borders on�rationalistic�idealism."

I'll let you in on a secret. The rationalists who insist on this aren't getting any, & never will. And their insistence is their way of holding the world responsible for their frustration. If it ever came to it, they'd never be capable of romance, since romance requires liberation from neurotic self-absorption, which some pseudo-Objectivists mistake for self-esteem.

Linz

Post 28

Friday, September 17, 2004 - 12:09pm

Lots of courage here. The last time I openly expressed my views on this subject was in a small restaurant in Greenwich Village in the 70's. A woman at the next table fainted, and two waiters, neither of whom was particularly attractive, followed me for several days....
Seriously, I think Linz pretty much has it right again. I certainly have some wonderful memories that aren't tied to love in the least, but there is nothing like the combination of sex and love.

Post 29

Friday, September 17, 2004 - 1:35pm

Regi,

I do not know how to help those who have decided their feelings cause their behavior and have desire to discover why they have the feelings they do.

I was not asking for "help." If I were, I'd call Dr. Laura, because for all her religious stuff, she tells women to put out more -- a position I have no choice but to respect.

I was merely asking what you could possibly identify in certain desires as a "cause." A desire is not a behavior, but a likely potential cause of behavior. Behavior is controlled by other things aside from feeling, nonetheless, all desires are not--unless you can explain how they are.

I gave you a simple and common sexual desire--one that seems to be tied to reason in no way, or at least no way that warrants "logical correction." You have failed to explain one single hypothetical reason why that desire is not simply a desire.

Your trouble with coming up with an explanation further supports the "mysterious desires" argument. It is very possible that sexual desires come from past experiences--say, seeing a certain person in a certain context, when one was a small child, and that impression affecting one's desires for life. Or a random series of such experiences, many of which would dissipate in memory.

Now, such causes are often nearly impossible to discern. So the desire is not out-of-the-blue... but is mysterious. And often irresolvable.

(Edited by Alec Mouhibian on 9/17, 3:25pm)

Post 30

Friday, September 17, 2004 - 7:06am

Ha ha!! Couldn�t agree more with that.

It's a gulf between self-repudiation and self-esteem.

Post 31

Friday, September 17, 2004 - 4:57pm

Linz wrote:

As long as no deceit is involved, I'm all in favour of recreational sex for its own sake. It's not the highest form of sex possible to us, which is sex combined with the deepest, most passionately-felt love, but in its own terms (context) is absolutely legitimate & delicious, & much better than *no* sex. In this regard, just wait till you see the upcoming FreeRad, where Nathaniel Branden quotes Ayn Rand as endorsing precisely the view I've just expressed! :-) ... I'll let you in on a secret. The rationalists who insist [that sex always occur within the context of a deep romance] aren't getting any, & never will. And their insistence is their way of holding the world responsible for their frustration. If it ever came to it, they'd never be capable of romance, since romance requires liberation from neurotic self-absorption, which some pseudo-Objectivists mistake for self-esteem.

James Kilbourne wrote:

I certainly have some wonderful memories that aren't tied to love in the least, but there is nothing like the combination of sex and love.

Objectivism depicts each of us as a being of self-made soul. I presume this includes self-development of one's sexuality -- responsibly acquiring and validating knowledge about sex and then pursuing its value in the context of all one's values and the universal needs of man qua man. This area of developing one's own sexuality needs intense exploration and rigorous argumentation and validation, especially for parents who practice their proper responsibility of offering their children objective education about this most important part of being human.

For those of us who matured into adulthood in the Bible belt during the rise of deadly sexually transmitted diseases, anti-abortion hysteria and other prolific discouragements, many of the statements on this forum fall outside direct personal experience. Correcting faulty principles on our Belief Windows regarding sex proves an ongoing effort. I hope to see these topics explored in future articles posted to the SOLO Romance page.

I will stop now before I get the urge to draw a "Speed Seduction Flow Chart". ;-)

Luke Setzer

Post 32

Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 6:57am

Glenn,

Regi, cutting off your arm or leg can�t bring you happiness (unless you need to in order to save your life.) You can objectively show this!

....

Arbitrarily cutting off your arm is clearly outside the range of moral actions I�m trying to say are available.

But if one's orientation is to live as an amputee how could that be outside the range of moral actions. Just because the idea disgusts you? Aren't you just judging how others choose to live their lives based on your personal preferences.

Psychiatrists and physicians are cutting of people limbs because that is the only way they can be happy.

"Costing an Arm and a Leg"

Body Integrity Identity Disorder, or BIID

Did you think I just made this up? There is not one argument for considering homosexuality normal that cannot be made for BIID, minus the sexual component (which actually is part of some BIID cases).

Regi

Post 33

Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 7:12am

Alec,

I was not asking for "help."

Replace the word "help" with "explain to."

I did not deny people have desires, whims, and impulses they do not know the reason for. If one has a desire and does not know why, that kind of desire ought to be immediately suspect.

I think the kind of answer you might be looking for is in these posts to Barbara Branden,
http://solohq.com/Forum/ArticleDiscussions/0782_1.shtml#23, and, Wayne Simmons, http://solohq.com/Forum/ArticleDiscussions/0782_1.shtml#28.

Regi

Post 34

Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 2:35pm

Regi,

So I suppose my sexual attraction to certain types, which I can't explain, must be immediately suspect.

Additionally, in what you linked, you say: "The sexual desires are no different than any others. No one is born with a desire to fulfill the potential of sex in any particular way"

This is just factually false. Sexual desires are very different from other desires. And we are born with them. How they develop is a different story: but we are certainly born with them. Do you think the first child was begotten out of a random curiousity to put things into holes? How lucky we are then.

Erections, last time I checked, aren't learned, nor are their initial causes. The path the penis takes from hangman to torpedo isn't a 12-step process mastered over time in a classroom.

Post 35

Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 5:50pm

Alec,

I have been forbidden to discuss this subject on this forum: http://solohq.com/Spirit/Announcements/3.shtml

Sorry!

Regi

Post 36

Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 7:01pm

Reginald Heatlamp said, "I have been forbidden to discuss this subject on this forum ..." and by doing so demonstrated that like his colleague Mr Rat (who claims with equal disingenuousness that he doesn't know the difference between being banned and being moderated) that he is indeed dishonest. Transparently so.

What on earth did Objectivism do to attract people like this?

Post 37

Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 8:11am

Great article Lindsay. Important stuff for me. I had a kind of lightbulb moment, reading one paragraph because I too have been guilty of shovelling aside in prior relationships. I have also been guilty of denying parts of myself including desires. Honoring ones self, ALL of ones self, is a lifelong and important pursuit. Not to be presumptuous but I'd like to see you write more on this.

Anyway, thank you for writing it :)

Post 38

Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 4:15pm

John - again, you're very welcome. If I had the time, I'd like to write a lot more about the seductive (to Objectivists) virus of rationalism, & how repudiating it does *not* make one a raving whim-worshipper. Unfinished business! :-)

Linz

Post 39

Friday, March 18, 2005 - 6:15pm