The Morality of Sexual Preference

Ethan, it was not I who commanded you to ignore me. Jay and I never saw Tool but we did see Pantera, Metallica, Biohazard, White Zombie and (the horror!) Rage Against the Machine.

But Bill, "bestiality" is not exactly a concrete. I want specific examples. Reminded of the topic by Ethan, I'll refer to my friends the sheepfuckers. I lived for a time with some Mixteco Indians of Oaxaca Mexico. They were in the habit as young men of allowing calves, who were seeking cow's milk, to fellate them. This is certainly bestiality. But it strikes me as morally no different from masturbation. It would only be immoral if it were a compulsion, if it were destructive, if it led then to eschew romantic relationships with humans, and so forth. This is an example of why I am leery of what I call "top-down" sexual morality. The principles of not allowing oneself to be ruled by compulsion, to harm oneself, or to forfeit a greater value for a lesser value are not specific to sexuality, they are broad formal moral principles. If we flat out condemned bestiality as such based on some rationalistic principle, we would have to condemn these people, whom I happen to know as happy, productive, and affectionate human beings who simply have a different ick factor when compared to other cultures. I am not about to run out and seek a suckling calf, but neither am I prepared to say that what these friends of mine did was inherently immoral since it was an exemplification of the abstract concept of bestiality.

Post 21

Sunday, July 26, 2009 - 11:54am

Hi Bill,

With ethics, so long as one is acting in accordance with one's nature, one is acting ethically, yes? So, say, feigning a straight relationship when one is gay (and knows it) would be immoral.

Next, Rand extolled sex. She viewed sex qua human (if memory serves) as a high expression of love for another and joy for life in general. So she probably would've thought it "sub-human" to have loveless, random, spontaneous sex with strangers.

I'm not sure how this holds up as a "universal" sexual ethic. This high sexual ethic might be specific to *her* nature. Maybe others, by *their* nature, don't necessarily put such a premium on sex. Maybe they view it more like a handshake or a back rub -- something physically pleasurable but not necessarily with the heavy love element. Maybe this would make them more "animal-like" in Rand's eyes, but whatever...if that's their nature, then so be it.

I would add that there's a bizarre sexual ethic gaining popularity in the younger generation. It's comes not from a place of love or even of sexual pleasure, but rather from a place of spectacle and fashion. For example, consider the straight girl who makes out with another straight girl at a party. Look how cool they are, making out like that in public! It's hard for me to see how this isn't *other-oriented*, like they're doing this just to be showy, which seems to comport neither with the rational (expression of love) or the animal (physical pleasure) of nature of being human.

Jordan

(Edited by Jordan on 7/26, 10:08pm)

Post 22

Sunday, July 26, 2009 - 1:10pm

I remember reading in Ayn Rand's Q&A that she's asked at one point about sexual morality (I don't know the page number offhand; it can probably be found in the index). She answers essentially that it's derived from what a man or a woman IS metaphysically.

Metaphysically, a man is a being that experiences pure sexual pleasure most profoundly from the physical union with a woman who embodies his deepest values. Given the objective nature of his sexual organ and hers, AR said, it's right for him to be the aggressor and her the more submissive receiver. That's essentially what AR said, but she didn't elaborate more on that point to the best of my knowledge.

Anyway, her view upsets some Objectivists because of its implication concerning homosexuality. AR did say once that homosexual sex was disgusting and homosexuality the product of intellectual error, though by some accounts she may have changed that view late in life.

Leonard Peikoff has said that her statement can't really be considered part of Objectivism, because O'ism is that which AR wrote philosophically, not her off the cuff spoken opinions.

As for "2 girls, 1 cup," Bill, you REALLY don't want to know. Trust me.

Post 23

Sunday, July 26, 2009 - 1:52pm

What is the point of this search for a universal sexual morality? Is there a universal sexual nature?

First the "Objectivist" argues that one's sexual response depends on man's nature as a rational animal. Each of us responds to the virtue in the other...

But wait! How do you explain the fact that normal people have a preference for a specific gender? Now the "Objectivist" argues that there are really two types of human nature. The essence of femininity is man worship, and the essence of masculinity is, um...

But wait! How does the open-minded and worldly Objectivist avoid declaring homosexuals perverts for not being attracted to the opposite gender? Now the 21st Century "Objectivist" recognizes that there are four types of human nature, the straight man, the gay man, the straight woman and the lesbian...

But Wait! Are we to sweep the bisexual under the rug? Do bisexual men and women have the same nature, since they will sleep with the same subset of sex objects? And what about the transsexual? Are there six genders? Are there 28? Plato said something about there being three original genders...

But wait! Are we Platonists? Are there ideal forms prior to and more real than the individual that "Objectivists" must apprehend in order to form a universal sexual morality? Or was Aristotle right, that the individual's nature is primary, and that each person's nature is equally real?

The science of ethics does not provide us with the specific content of our values. Yes, ethics teaches that the initiation of force is the termination of reason. Yes, logic demands that we not abandon a higher value for a lower one. But formal morality does not provide us with the substance of our values. Just as we build the conceptual content of our minds from the bottom up, so too do we develop our value systems from the bottom up, learning from childhood the simple pleasures and then the complex joys that comprise our happiness as we become mature adults.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 7/26, 4:54pm)

Post 24

Sunday, July 26, 2009 - 2:34pm

Ted: "What is the point of this search for a universal sexual morality?"

Well, what's the point of morality at all? A moral code is a guide to chosen actions. All of a person's chosen actions fall under the province of moral philosophy, though some may be ultimately insignificant. Objectivism holds that one's own successful life is the purpose of a moral code (i.e., guide to chosen actions). And having sex with someone else is obviously a chosen action; it's not automatic like the beating of one's heart.

Ted: Are there six genders? Are there 28? Plato said something about there being three original genders...

Is this a serious question? Plato was an exponent of absurd mysticism. That's why AR admired Aristotle and not Plato. Obviously, there are two genders: male and female. Those are the biologically differentiated genders known by sense-perception, not only in humans but in all animals. But some individuals may appear less masculine or feminine than others do.

Ted: "The science of ethics does not provide us with the specific content of our values."

No, but it does provide us with the parameters in which to select those concrete values. There are proper values, and there are improper ones, according to Objectivism. Proper values are consistent with WHAT a person is metaphysically; improper ones are inconsistent with that fact.

That isn't to say I believe homosexuality is immoral per se. But sexual behavior is certainly within the realm of moral theory and judgment.
(Edited by Jon Trager on 7/26, 2:40pm)

Post 25

Sunday, July 26, 2009 - 2:41pm

I tend to think that bondage and S and M are immoral... At the very least, I believe that such practices rely on the participants having something wrong with them psychologically **awaiting someone to beat me for saying something that may offend** :)
Seriously though, I don't think that healthy people think about abusing or raping their partners... not that i haven't thought about it myself, but I would be the first to accept that that probably means I had a problem when I thought that way.
As far as what kind of general rule should determine what is healthy sexually and what isn't though, I have no idea what kind of rule that would be... I'm just commenting on one type of sexual practice because it is one that I've thought about before.
Of course, we have to draw a line between thinking that certain sexual practices are immoral and thinking that they should be outlawed though.... I of course would not recommend outlawing bondage or S and M just becasue I think their immoral:) (That should perhaps be a given in this forum, but I wanted to make sure nobody thought I might end up being some kind of sex-police; as a member of the LGBT community also, I have plenty of reasons to be afraid of such types of people.
Incidentally, does anyone know about the status of the Rattigan Society's website? I joined some kind of thing so that they would send me messages knowing how the site is coming along or whatever, but haven't got a message from them yet. It's been about a week since I signed up on the current site for those e-mails, so I don't know what's taking them so long.

Post 26

Sunday, July 26, 2009 - 3:20pm

Jon, what do you think of Ted's example of using suckling calves for sexual gratification?

Morally neutral, or not? I'm wondering what Bill thinks about this as well.

As usual, Ted makes a very good argument, and I'm having a hard time finding any holes in it, other than a weak relativist objection.

It would only be immoral if it were a compulsion, if it were destructive, if it led then to eschew romantic relationships with humans, and so forth.

I have no disagreement with this, but how would these be discovered? It seems to me that seeking out a calf is already in the realm of compulsion, maybe not, but where's the line?

Can we go so far as to say that surrendering control to the mindless instincts of a calf is morally neutral? I can't in my gut say it is. My "ick" factor has nothing to do with this. I'm honestly looking for moral truths. I think Bill is, too.

(Edited by Teresa Summerlee Isanhart on 7/26, 4:30pm)

Post 27

Sunday, July 26, 2009 - 4:20pm

I think Bill nailed the controversy in his first thread saying, "Of course, someone will be quick to reply that [sexual ethics] is the province of psychology, not philosophy, but do people really believe this?"

I think Ted would say yes. This discussion really is about what specific kinds of relationships will make an individual happiest.

If I've characterized that correctly, I'd have to agree with Ted overall so far.

Kudos to Teresa in post #3 for pointing out that what ought to be legal cannot be said to be moral automatically.

Post 28

Sunday, July 26, 2009 - 6:34pm

Ted says that bestiality can simply be another form of masturbation. I suppose that's true unless, of course, you get turned on by the wooly creatures. Then you might very well have a problem. Also, you may run the risk of serious injury, if the animal doesn't cooperate the way you would like. :-/

What about S&M? I think there's a psychological issue here that comes into play -- that S&M may very well have its roots in a bad psychology.

What about pedophilia? Even if the person doesn't act on it -- doesn't molest children -- but simply fantasizes about doing so, the sexual orientation may have its origins in a retarded or unhealthy psychology. Ditto for the man who has rape fantasies and enjoys interpersonal sex only with an unwilling partner. Even if he doesn't act on it, his sexual orientation could be considered inappropriate.

Then, of course, there's promiscuity. A person can be neurotically motivated to pursue compulsive and indiscriminate sex in order to achieve self-esteem (i.e., by the number of conquests). In this case, the motivation is unhealthy and ultimately self-defeating.

What about prostitution? Leaving aside the risks to the prostitute, which could be minimized if the profession were legal, is this an appropriate lifestyle, or does it reflect a lack of self-esteem? And what about men who visit prostitutes? Is this simply another form of masturbation -- viz., sexual release without romantic involvement? Or does a preference for prostitutes over romantic relationships reflect a psychological shortcoming?

Suppose that a homosexual preference were due to the mistaken belief that one is inferior to other men -- that one is insufficiently masculine -- or to a belief that women are either unattainable or inferior to men and therefore unworthy of one's attention or interest. Would that call it into question as an appropriate sexual orientation under those conditions? -- which is not to say that homosexuality is necessarily due to such factors; only that if it were, the orientation would be the consequence of a mistaken evaluation. By the same token, if a woman were a lesbian because she mistakenly viewed all men as dangerous brutes and found relationships with other women less threatening, her sexual orientation would also be due to a mistake in judgment, and could perhaps be considered inappropriate on those grounds.

So, whether or not a sexual orientation is morally appropriate for any given individual may depend on the thinking and evaluations that give rise to it, which may have been what Rand was alluding to when she referred to homosexuality as the consequence of some "unfortunate premises."

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer on 7/26, 6:36pm)

(Edited by William Dwyer on 7/26, 6:38pm)

(Edited by William Dwyer on 7/26, 6:40pm)

Post 29

Monday, July 27, 2009 - 6:28am

These two books look like reliable places to learn the phenomena, research, and explanatory theories from which informed evaluation can be made of phenomena alluded to in this thread:

Written in the Flesh � A History of Desire
Edward Shorter (2005 University of Toronto).

The Psychophysiology of Sex
Erick Janssen, editor (2007 University of Indiana)

Bill, you can get rid of those multiple "Edited by . . ." notes at the bottom of your post by going in to edit the post once more. You will find the multiple "Edited by . . ." notes within your frame for editing text. They appear as part of your text, right at the bottom. Delete every one of them you see there. Then repost.

Post 30

Monday, July 27, 2009 - 6:33am

I still feel there is a separation between ethical sexual behavior and psychological sexual thoughts and actions. Whatever line one might imagine that may be crossed by consenting adults, it is undoubtedly going to be of a psychological nature - for many of the reasons already postulated here.

Should the sexual acts be clearly self-destructive - and who is going to be the interpreter of the actions? - what then? I think this aspect belongs in the realm of psychology.

jt

Post 31

Monday, July 27, 2009 - 6:35am

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1739698,00.html

Ted Keer:

But Bill, "bestiality" is not exactly a concrete. I want specific examples.

Post 32

Monday, July 27, 2009 - 10:43am

Teresa: "Jon, what do you think of Ted's example of using suckling calves for sexual gratification?"

First, Ted's attitude here seems to be: If it's not violating anyone's rights, what's your problem with it, prude? He questioned even the point of discussing sexual morality, as if sexual relationships and behaviors were somehow outside the province of moral theory and judgment (sexual proclivity/orientation may be, but specific actions/behaviors never are).

To anyone who grasps the Objectivist Ethics, the problem with that is that Objectivist morality is NOT entirely--or even primarily--about individual rights and social nonaggression. Objectivist morality, like any moral code, is primarily about values and virtues IN ONE'S OWN LIFE. A person's values--or that which he or she acts to gain/keep--must fall within the scope of the moral code to be considered moral. Therefore, an action that causes absolutely no physical harm to anyone or...eh...anything other than the acting agent can still rightly be judged as immoral if such an action isn't consistent with Objectivist morality, which itself is derived from facts about man's metaphysical nature.

Now, suckling calves for sexual gratification? Wow. Short answer: no, I don't think that's a moral act. I don't think acting to gain sexual stimulation from animals (or plants) is a moral act. Why not? Simply put, because it divorces the physical aspect of sexual relationships from the mental aspect (i.e., shared values).

Objectivism does NOT endorse a mind-body split. It does NOT view proper sexual relationships as something limited to pleasurable physical sensations. Physical pleasure is clearly an integral part of moral sexual relationships, but it's not the end to which all other considerations--save the noninitiation of force--are to be discarded.
(Edited by Jon Trager on 7/27, 10:52am)

(Edited by Jon Trager on 7/27, 10:54am)

Post 33

Monday, July 27, 2009 - 12:35pm

Jon,

Ted isn't falling for the legal-moral equivocation. No one has since post 2.

The mind/body dichotomy argument you gave implies that masterbation would be immoral as well.

Post 34

Monday, July 27, 2009 - 1:37pm

A problem I've long had with Objectivist discussions is that they all step around the fact that sex is typically, normally, metaphysically if you will, reproductive. If you dispense with that, as the Objectivists do, I don't see that much is left in the way of natural norms.

Jordan put in in #22, "metaphysically, a man is a being that experiences pure sexual pleasure most profoundly from the physical union with a woman who embodies his deepest values. Given the objective nature of his sexual organ and hers, AR said, it's right for ...."

Metaphysically, man is a being that can fertilize an ovum. Given the objective nature of his sexual organ and hers, she will sooner or later become pregnant and bear a child. Once this enters the realm of the optional, dispensable or inessential, the only norm left standing is the political one: don't hurt anybody.

Post 35

Monday, July 27, 2009 - 1:45pm

Bill, you can get rid of those multiple "Edited by . . ." notes at the bottom of your post by going in to edit the post once more. You will find the multiple "Edited by . . ." notes within your frame for editing text. They appear as part of your text, right at the bottom. Delete every one of them you see there. Then repost.

Thanks, Stephen. I'm aware of that. I haven't done it, as a rule, because I've wanted all of my revisions to be up front and transparent, but I suppose it doesn't much matter. There will always be at least one "edited by" indicating that changes were made to the original.

- Bill

Post 36

Monday, July 27, 2009 - 2:31pm

Jon, would you please fill out your extended profile? I find it hard to understand where you are coming from, especially since your posts are responding to arguments I haven't made, such as the desirability of pursuing a romantic relationship with a plant. As for your comment in post 32 that I have said sex is outside morality, no, I haven't said that at all, you are just quoting your own misunderstanding of my argument from your post 24. I'll clarify things for you - but only if you fill out your profile.

Doug, yes, for the most part one needs to understand one's own nature and examine one's own values, which you could subsume for sake of argument under the field of psychology.

Bill, yes, if a person found himself drawn to calves as romantic objects, he might want to seek further insight, and perhaps try to redirect his efforts, since cattle rarely return one's romantic overtures. As for an attraction to fur, maybe Phil Osbourn could enlighten us.

Post 37

Monday, July 27, 2009 - 2:52pm

Doug: "Ted isn't falling for the legal-moral equivocation."

I didn't say anything about a legal-moral equivocation, Doug. Individual rights are the basis for just law, but they're primarily a moral concept. So it's not an issue of the law here, and I haven't referred to the legal system.

Here's what I did say: Believing that actions that don't violate rights are morally okay--or are outside the purview of morality per se--just doesn't jibe with Objectivism. Why not? Because morality isn't primarily social; it's primarily individual. Yet Ted seems to be taking the line of: If it's not hurting anybody else, why even consider sexual activity a moral question? Peter then echoes that sentiment.

Doug: "The mind/body dichotomy argument you gave implies that [masturbation] would be immoral as well."

It would if masturbation was a sexual relationship, but it's not. It's an individual act that doesn't involve anyone or anything else. And it's a value--in the proper context--as a mere release for a sexually mature being who has no proper sexual partner available at the time. That's why AR called it "sexual self-sufficiency."

Peter: "Jordan put in in #22, "metaphysically, a man is a being that experiences pure sexual pleasure most profoundly from the physical union with a woman who embodies his deepest values. Given the objective nature of his sexual organ and hers, AR said, it's right for ...."

No, Jon put it that way, not Jordan. You shouldn't put my words into someone else's mouth.

Peter: "Metaphysically, man is a being that can fertilize an ovum. Given the objective nature of his sexual organ and hers, she will sooner or later become pregnant and bear a child. Once this enters the realm of the optional, dispensable or inessential, the only norm left standing is the political one: don't hurt anybody."

Huh? Man is a being that can fertilize an ovum. Okay, that's true if we're speaking of man as such.

She will sooner or later become pregnant and bear a child. That's not true. A woman needn't get pregnant and bear a child even if she has sex. AR didn't, for example, and many other women with healthy sex lives don't either.

Your last statement I don't get. But I can say that "don't hurt anybody" is NOT the Objectivist ethics, though some Objectivists seem to think it is. That's an important but secondary part of Objectivist morality.

Post 38

Monday, July 27, 2009 - 3:05pm

Jon, would you please fill out your extended profile? I find it hard to understand where you are coming from..

I.e. Jon, can you provide some personal information for Ted to use to attack you with and to psycholigize you because personal information is actually more important than the actual arguments you are putting forth. Maybe he can even accuse you of beating up your mother.

Post 39

Monday, July 27, 2009 - 3:15pm