The Morality of Sexual Preference

If the relationship is not immoral in and of itself (like any relationship), then It is possible for the relationship to be moral. This has been my point the whole exchange. Bill, if a BDSM relationship is not inherently immoral, as you stated, the only possible answer to the other questions you raised is "We would have to judge every relationship based on it's own variables."

The Objectivist view of morality is what is good for the human being's survival and happiness. Low self-esteem and feelings of worthlessness are not good for one, obviously. So, whatever contributes to that is also not a good thing. The question is, does the practice of S&M by itself contribute to low self-esteem? Or is it simply a symptom of the low self-esteem, with the cause lying elsewhere? I'm not sure, since I'm not a psychologist.

Even if it does contribute to low self-esteem, there is also the question of how easy it is to overcome. Sexual orientation is notoriously difficult to change, and one has to weigh the cost of therapy over the benefits that it's likely to produce. In that respect, the question of whether S&M is a moral or an immoral practice it's not a cut and dried issue. It depends on the person's context and the alternatives available to him.

Post 101

Saturday, August 1, 2009 - 5:34pm

John, You are incorrect. Bill directly stated that a BDSM relationship is not inherently immoral. The only possible extrapolation from that is that it is POSSIBLE for moral or morally neutral variables to inspire a BDSM relationship. You defaulted to the "I know because I know" defense in post 96. You personally can't think of any non-immoral roots of such a relationship, therefore they don't exist. From experience debating with you I've found that that is generally the point to cease talking with you about whatever we're talking about.

Teresa, I have no idea as to collected data. Many people I've met supply anecdotal accounts that "the lifestyle" as it is called within such circles enriches their lives, on both sides. I have no idea how one would measure whether BDSM sex with a trusted, cherished partner would measure up with vanilla sex with a trusted, cherished partner. Most serious BDSM couples I've met pursue both.

"If the "tap" requires the sacrifice of one to the other, then yeah, it's immoral."

Of course, thats why you'll find "consensual" stressed about a thousand times in any relevant literature you might read. Generally it appears beside "Safe and sane".

"Not so much with getting spanked. What am I supposed to get out of it, again? Where's the value? This is supposed to feel good, right? So, why doesn't it feel good? This can't be right...."

People are different. Just because one person's tastes don't run toward an activity, doesn't make it a non-value for everyone. It is not "supposed" to feel good. It feels good for some people.

"Lacking a good solid moral foundation, I can see how individuals with a weaker sense of self-value could get talked, or manipulated, into the idea of being dominated and all that. Top, bottom, who cares?? Sounds like a whole lot of rules and score keeping to me"

I wouldn't know, I haven't psychoanalyzed a significant number of people into BDSM. Do you see the danger of implying that anyone who participates in an activity you don't understand must have been manipulated into it? Yes, there are a lot of rules. If you're going to play with someone in a way that involves supreme trust, controlled danger, powerful emotional drives, and pain in a consensual fashion and you better have a hell of a lot of rules and both participants better be on the same page about what's appropriate and what isn't.

See someone punching someone on the street and you see a crime. See someone punching someone in an appropriate setting, with appropriate rules, equipment and consent and you're seeing Boxing.

Post 102

Saturday, August 1, 2009 - 5:39pm

Bill, I agree. I do not personally hold the belief that the only root of such behavior is worthlessness or chronic low self-esteem. I'm positive that it is the root for many people, just like it motivates so many other things. I equally positive that it can be practiced safely and sanely, without being based in hideous psychological damage. Lots of activities involve pain and danger, yet are considered healthy and enjoyable.

Post 103

Saturday, August 1, 2009 - 6:31pm

(beating the pony)

Of course, thats why you'll find "consensual" stressed about a thousand times in any relevant literature you might read. Generally it appears beside "Safe and sane".

"Safe and sane" speaks volumes. Again, is consent a magic moral pill? Does anything one might consent to make that action moral? Are there any grounded, universal standards to the values one might choose?

It is not "supposed" to feel good. It feels good for some people.

Some people claim it feels good. "Good" isn't subjective. It's an actual, hard, concrete provable value with real standards that can be measured. Advertising as "safe and sane" doesn't sound like SM to me. It sounds more like therapy. Is it good therapy? Why?

I wouldn't know, I haven't psychoanalyzed a significant number of people into BDSM. Do you see the danger of implying that anyone who participates in an activity you don't understand must have been manipulated into it?

Not really. The reasons for wanting this kind of satisfaction have been far from explained. Explanations so far are (which can also apply to any religious cult): People are different. People claim to like it. People claim to get value out of it. The "good" hasn't been measured by any rational standards. Only subjective reasons have been offered.

Yes, there are a lot of rules. If you're going to play with someone in a way that involves supreme trust, controlled danger, powerful emotional drives, and pain in a consensual fashion and you better have a hell of a lot of rules and both participants better be on the same page about what's appropriate and what isn't.

Like a game with opponents, enemies, and adversaries?

Post 104

Saturday, August 1, 2009 - 10:18pm

Ryan:

John, You are incorrect. Bill directly stated that a BDSM relationship is not inherently immoral. The only possible extrapolation from that is that it is POSSIBLE for moral or morally neutral variables to inspire a BDSM relationship. You defaulted to the "I know because I know" defense in post 96. You personally can't think of any non-immoral roots of such a relationship, therefore they don't exist. From experience debating with you I've found that that is generally the point to cease talking with you about whatever we're talking about.

Ryan what's the matter with you? If I misunderstood something you said you can just try and tell me. You're obviously not understanding what I'm trying to say, if that's the case then I apologize for not making myself more clear, if you care to carry on a sincere conversation I'm willing.

And I'm not even sure I understand what you're saying. So I guess there's a misunderstanding here. I'm saying there are essential characteristics that define "sadomasochism", and that any relationship based on this must therefore have these characteristics or else if they didn't, they could not be considered a sadomasochistic relationship. If those characteristics which must be common to all sadomasochistic relationships are psychologically harmful, then it's at least logically coherent to say they are not in the best interests of an individual. You're saying maybe there can be "moral" roots to a sadomasochistic relationship, I don't understand how you can have "moral" roots to a sadomasochistic relationship, because I don't know what relevance the "root" of the relationship has with the *actual* practicing sadomasochistic relationship itself which entails things like humiliation, denigration, pain. I'm saying *IF* the very act of sadomasochism runs contrary to one's self interest, it can't be moral. You are saying it's not harmful, if not, can you explain why someone would want to experience some form of denigration or humiliation or wish to inflict it on others? Maybe I'm wrong, but I find it hard to believe these things are not the result of low self-esteem. But you seem to be so sure they are not, I don't understand how you can take such a position considering the acts we are talking about here.

Post 105

Sunday, August 2, 2009 - 9:39am

John,

All of the dictionary definitions I find for masochism in the context of sexual activities say that it implicates humiliation or abnormally intense levels of pain in sexual arousal. They all say OR, not AND. So Dagny, with zilch play of humiliation, can be a masochist in bed provided the levels of pain enjoyed in arousal are sufficiently intense. (However abnormal in the statistical sense, I gather this is not regarded as pathological if it does not impair her life activities.) She wakes with bruises after that first night with the guy in the steel industry, and if she went into the abnormal range, then in conventional terms, she is masochistic, and he is sadistic. Given other possible import of those labels, I imagine a lot of us would soften it a bit by saying that that couple had those tendencies.

If she likes to be tied to the bed, it usually would be said she�s into bondage. So when people use the terms masochism or bondage it does not necessarily entail any sort of humiliation or even playing of humiliation within sexual enjoyment.

There is something puzzling about a thread like this one. I understand that it�s fun to talk about sex. That part I get. But I�m pretty sure there is not one single participant in this thread who thinks he or she is in need of any moral or psychological guidance in these various sexual matters. If one were thinking about what guidance to give someone else not participating here�say someone in your clinical care�yeah, that might make sense.

I remember a similar puzzlement I had many years ago, in the 70�s, over Anita Bryant�s intense interest in the topic of homosexuality. She had become a public crusader concerning various legal controversies over homosexuality. She even got so agitated at one point that she was advocating a penalty of twenty years in prison for commission of a single homosexual act. I kept asking myself, Why you, Anita? She was a personal acquaintance of my immediate family from childhood and on into her adult successes. I remember my father, too, remarking once to me that he didn�t know how she ever got involved in that stuff. Years later it came out that her husband was one of the despised class. In retrospect it looked as if it had all been about getting back at someone who had hurt her.

Post 106

Sunday, August 2, 2009 - 10:59am

There is something puzzling about a thread like this one. I understand that it�s fun to talk about sex. That part I get.

That's not the reason that I started the thread. In my initial post, I wrote,

"Is sexual orientation immune from moral evaluation, or can someone's sexual preference be criticized as immoral or inappropriate?! Nowadays, when virtually any form of sexuality demands tolerance if not celebration, the very idea that certain forms of sexuality might be wrong or inappropriate is viewed as secular heresy -- indeed as shockingly offensive. "

The reason I brought this up is that I had been reading notes that someone had given me from Nathaniel Branden's "Basic Principles of Objectivist Psychology" in which he discusses the psychology of sex and sexual neuroses. It occurred to me that although Objectivism had taken certain psychological and ethical positions on these matters, little else had been said about sexual morality since Branden's departure from the orthodox Objectivism movement other than the fact that romantic love is the highest expression of sex and that mindless promiscuity is regarded as immoral or inappropriate.

The contemporary views on sex are either religious and puritanical, on the one hand, or "anything goes" on the other. There tends to be no well-defined secular view of sexual morality that is widely accepted. Since Objectivism is challenging contemporary morality, and since it has expressed a certain view of sexuality morality, I thought it would be interesting to explore this issue further, since it has gotten relatively little treatment in the Objectivist literature or discussion groups.

But I�m pretty sure there is not one single participant in this thread who thinks he or she is in need of any moral or psychological guidance in these various sexual matters.

Why? Why assume that?

If one were thinking about what guidance to give someone else not participating here�say someone in your clinical care�yeah, that might make sense.

You mean we can't discuss this issue unless were psychotherapists dispensing clinical care for our patients?

I remember a similar puzzlement I had many years ago, in the 70�s, over Anita Bryant�s intense interest in the topic of homosexuality. She had become a public crusader concerning various legal controversies over homosexuality. She even got so agitated at one point that she was advocating a penalty of twenty years in prison for commission of a single homosexual act. I kept asking myself, Why you, Anita? She was a personal acquaintance of my immediate family from childhood and on into her adult successes. I remember my father, too, remarking once to me that he didn�t know how she ever got involved in that stuff. Years later it came out that her husband was one of the despised class. In retrospect it looked as if it had all been about getting back at someone who had hurt her.

Awhile ago, Ted implied that the reason I objected to his defenses of religion is that I must have been hurt by some religious person in the past. Then in the current thread he demanded to know the personal background of Jon Trager, as if that were relevant to the merits of Jon's arguments. Now it seems you're suggesting that I or others on this thread might just have a similarly biased reason for expressing certain views of what is sexually appropriate or inappropriate. We too are subconsciously "getting back" at someone in our past.

Steven, I really think we need to leave this kind of personal innuendo and psychologizing out of the discussion.

Post 107

Sunday, August 2, 2009 - 11:32am

- Steven, I really think we need to leave this kind of personal innuendo and psychologizing out of the discussion.
i fully agree Bill - but most posts seem to abound with innuendo and armchair-psychology when it comes to 'the other' sexuality - as if having to defend one's own sexuality by taking others' down
or why do you think there's such a negative focus on sm? i'm curious how this discussion continues when we get to the morality of the other sexualities ...

Steven:
thanx for the Dagny reference :)

VSD
(Edited by Vera S. Doerr on 8/02, 11:36am)

Post 108

Sunday, August 2, 2009 - 11:57am

i'm curious how this discussion continues when we get to the morality of the other sexualities ...
.................

Do you think it ever will? remember, that which is taken as a 'given' is rarely given much if any real thinking on - an evasive tactic, perhaps?

Post 109

Sunday, August 2, 2009 - 12:17pm

Bill: "The contemporary views on sex are either religious and puritanical, on the one hand, or "anything goes" on the other."

That's true, and this thread proves that some self-identified Objectivists aren't immune to that false dichotomy. Witness how a discussion of the morality of sexual activity--except, of course, for the acts of rape or sex with children--is automatically labeled "puritanical" and/or "religious" by some. It's too bad that such a knee-jerk response even exists among some people who claim to subscribe to Objectivism, a philosophic system that clearly does NOT limit moral judgment to non-consensual relationships.

Of course, that IS the view of some (though not all) contemporary libertarians who think morality begins and ends with the nonagression "axiom." But it's not the view of someone who understands and embraces Objectivism.

Bill: "Steven, I really think we need to leave this kind of personal innuendo and psychologizing out of the discussion."

Amen to that.

Post 110

Sunday, August 2, 2009 - 2:28pm

I tied to do some research this morning in an effort to discover any evidence, evolutionary or not, that the brain can develop issues with other parts of the nervous system and misinterpret sensory information. Pain interpreted as pleasure, in other words.

Philosophically, Mills came up over and over again. I don't have time to draw a line between egalitarianism and sexual preference, but apparently there is one somewhere.

All evolutionary evidence and theory points to the idea that pain evolved to facilitate the survival and reproduction of an organism. All pain is an indication of cellular damage of some kind.

http://laral.istc.cnr.it/acerbi/pdfs/ECAL2007a.pdf

Physical pain is input
from within the organism�s body caused by some damage, or potential damage, to the
body. The organism�s nervous system must respond to pain in ways that tend to
increase the organism�s survival and reproductive chances.

In the
case of pain, not only the nervous system�s response to pain must evolve (to stop
moving) but pain itself as a signal to the nervous system must evolve. The body must
evolve a tendency to translate physical damage that occurs in some of its parts into
pain. In fact, people who are unable to feel pain tend to die before they reach
adulthood. Therefore, pain as an input to the nervous system can be considered as an
adaptation [8, 15, 16].

Here's another which alludes to some cultural influences, but questions the validity of them:

http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2008/03/on-problem-of-pain.html

All of the rest of our senses have a physical referent: heat receptors sense heat, cold receptors cold, taste receptors sugars and ions and acids and bases and certain amino acids in our food, rods and cones sense the presence of light photons, etc. But pain receptors do not sense the presence of "pain." No, "pain" is an "artificial sensation." What pain receptors are adapted to sensing is cellular damage.
Once again, is there any "reason" for all of this extravagant pain? C. S. Lewis, in The Problem of Pain, used an analogy with sculpting stone: that each "blow" of the pain we all feel is what "hammers" us into shape as people. That is, God gives us the ability to experience pain as a means of making us better people.
So, does the experience of pain make us "better people?" Only if we make it so, and then it isn�t the pain that is doing it, but rather our own determination to do so, which isn�t "natural" in any way.

If there are biological factors that contribute sexual preference (and we know there are, right?) is it possible they also contribute to all forms of that preference?

Post 111

Sunday, August 2, 2009 - 4:59pm

I wrote, "Steven, I really think we need to leave this kind of personal innuendo and psychologizing out of the discussion." Vera replied,

i fully agree Bill - but most posts seem to abound with innuendo and armchair-psychology when it comes to 'the other' sexuality . . .

Perhaps you could give some examples of what you're referring to -- unless you're saying that any evaluation of a sexual orientation is necessarily biased and inappropriate unless done by a trained psychologist. If one criticizes a sexual orientation like S&M, pedophilia or promiscuity, that doesn't mean that one is psychologizing about any particular individual who may happen to possess it. Otherwise, no such criticism or evaluation would ever be justified.

You mention "armchair psychologizing." So, are you saying that no one is entitled to pass judgment on any form sexual conduct, unless he or she is a clinical psychologist? If so, then what about a lay person's acceptance of the clinical psychologist's judgment?� If, for example, a respected psychologist says that S&M is a sexual neurosis, am I entitled to believe it, or is that also arm-chair psychologizing? If he says that homosexuality is a perfectly healthy form of sexual activity, should I believe him, or throw up my hands and say, "Who am I to judge?"

. . . - as if having to defend one's own sexuality by taking others' down or why do you think there's such a negative focus on sm?

Well, I'm certainly not "defending" my sexuality (so far, no one has attacked it!) by questioning S&M. For all you know, I might actually enjoy humiliating women, but nevertheless view it as perverse and inappropriate. I once knew a gay man who believed that homosexuality is immoral, despite my attempts to convince him otherwise. What I've been doing with regard to S&M, is simply expressing a point of view that was once a part of Branden's Objectivist psychology. Little did I think that I would receive flak for it or be labeled as some kind of puritanical malcontent with a veiled vendetta against anyone who happens to share that orientation.

i'm curious how this discussion continues when we get to the morality of the other sexualities ...

Well, you're certainly free to express your opinion. That's what this forum is designed to accommodate -- a free flowing discussion. Imagine that!

- Bill

Post 112

Sunday, August 2, 2009 - 7:05pm

Oh, please, Bill, you psychologize in your plea for "Steven" [sic] to end psychologizing.

This thread has been nothing but one floating abstraction after the other from the "we can pass moral judgment when we see it" crowd. I have repeatedly asked for specific concrete examples for debate, and have myself provided such examples, whereas you have provided such concrete specifics as what? "Pedophilia"? I would think someone who styles himself an Objectivist would know that "pedophilia" or "bestiality" is not exactly a concrete on the same level as judging the specific example of Mexican laborers who grow up on farms having sex with calves as a form of masturbation. Oh well. If that were the end of it, then fine.

But now you continue this floating abstraction nonsense beyond any possible profitable return, implying that those of us who say moral judgment has to be passed in the individual case, not in the floating abstract, don't believe in moral judgments, are presumably subjective whim worshippers and so on. Sorry, your project itself here is flawed. You might as well have a conventional and intrinsicist debate the "morality of weapons" or the "morality of drugs" as if sexuality had any moral import whatsoever outside its effect on individuals.

What this thread is about for the judgmentalists like yourself and Trager is a desire to find some sorts of sexuality where we can say now that's evil, not based on the individual case, but based on the intrinsic quality of the topic. That's no different from the Democrat saying he doesn't want to regulate all guns, just "assault weapons," or the Republican saying he doesn't want to regulate all drugs, just the "hard" ones. This is an emotionalist appeal to intrinsicist morality. The problem is, Objectivism doesn't accept the intrinsicist view. Weapons and drugs and sex acts are not good or evil in themselves. There is something off about the desire to continue this discussion as if Objectivism will provide us with intrinsic grounds for judging sexual acts.

Post 113

Sunday, August 2, 2009 - 7:39pm

Ted: "But now you [Bill] continue this floating abstraction nonsense beyond any possible profitable return, implying that those of us who say moral judgment has to be passed in the individual case, not in the floating abstract, don't believe in moral judgments, are presumably subjective whim worshippers and so on"

Is it okay to say that rape is morally wrong in principle, Ted? Or do we need to create an exhaustive list of specific instances of rapes so we can go down the line weighing each one? Perhaps you'd also need to know the personal characteristics of the rapists in question and want them to post detailed profiles online.

Ted: "What this thread is about for the judgmentalists like yourself and Trager is a desire to find some sorts of sexuality where we can say now that's evil, not based on the individual case, but based on the intrinsic quality of the topic"

Ugh. Objectivists ARE "judgmentalist," Ted. Sometimes those judgments are morally positive, sometimes they're morally neutral, sometimes they're morally negative, all depending on what's being judged. Using the term "judgmentalist" as an epithet against an Objectivist is stupid on its face. You'd know that if you really were one. See Ayn Rand's essay "How Does One Lead a Rational Life in an Irrational Society" in VOS for the proof.
(Edited by Jon Trager on 8/03, 7:23am)

(Edited by Jon Trager on 8/03, 2:03pm)

Post 114

Monday, August 3, 2009 - 12:50am

Ted wrote,

Oh, please, Bill, you psychologize in your plea for "Steven" [sic] to end psychologizing.

First of all, my apologies for misspelling Stephen's name. Secondly, I really don't know in what way I've psychologized in my "plea for Stephen to end psychologizing." How exactly have I done this? You've provided no reasons for your allegation.

This thread has been nothing but one floating abstraction after the other from the "we can pass moral judgment when we see it" crowd. I have repeatedly asked for specific concrete examples for debate, and have myself provided such examples, whereas you have provided such concrete specifics as what? "Pedophilia"? I would think someone who styles himself an Objectivist would know that "pedophilia" or "bestiality" is not exactly a concrete on the same level as judging the specific example of Mexican laborers who grow up on farms having sex with calves as a form of masturbation. Oh well. If that were the end of it, then fine.

Awhile ago, you asked me to be more specific as to pedophilia. I thought it was a legitimate question, and defined the term for the sake of clarity as a sexual orientation (by an adult) in children below the age of puberty. I raised the issue of someone with that orientation who doesn't actually molest children, and asked if the orientation (i.e., the desire itself) were morally objectionable. I thought it was a legitimate question. Is there some reason why I would need to go further and cite actual cases? I asked the same question concerning a person for whom rape is the only form of sexual gratification. I asked whether or not we could pass moral judgment on his orientation, even if he does not actually rape anyone. I thought that was a legitimate question.

But now you continue this floating abstraction nonsense beyond any possible profitable return, implying that those of us who say moral judgment has to be passed in the individual case, not in the floating abstract, don't believe in moral judgments, are presumably subjective whim worshippers and so on.

Where did I say that?

Sorry, your project itself here is flawed. You might as well have a conventional and intrinsicist debate [about] the "morality of weapons" or the "morality of drugs" as if sexuality had any moral import whatsoever outside its effect on individuals.

Are you saying that we can't generalize about these issues -- that any generalization is a floating abstraction, which has no basis in concrete reality? Do you also view the Objectivist opposition to promiscuity as a floating abstraction? Do we have to look at each individual slut or Don Juan to see if their compulsive behavior is justified?

Since I object to murder as such, would you say that I'm indulging in a floating abstraction and that before any objection can be raised to it, we have to consider each individual murder to see if it's justified? Objectivism opposes the initiation of force. Would you say that that too is a floating abstraction and that we must look at each individual case of coercion in order to decide if it's good or bad? Even if you were to make such an argument, you would still have to appeal to general principles in order to evaluate the individual cases. Objectivism has a term for the approach that you seem to be taking; it's called a "concrete-bound mentality."

What this thread is about for the judgmentalists like yourself and Trager is a desire to find some sorts of sexuality where we can say now that's evil, not based on the individual case, but based on the intrinsic quality of the topic.

As Jon pointed out, there's nothing wrong with passing moral judgment, which we can only do based on general moral principles. This is not intrinsicism. For example, we say that taxation is wrong on principle, not that its rightness or wrongness depends on the specific tax itself. One can certainly object to moral judgments that are incorrect, but that's what this thread is all about. What is a correct or incorrect moral judgment on issues of sexual preference? Evidently, you don't think that's a legitimate topic of inquiry. I get the impression that you find the very question offensive, but I'm not sure why? The reasons that you've given so far don't make sense.

That's no different from the Democrat saying he doesn't want to regulate all guns, just "assault weapons," or the Republican saying he doesn't want to regulate all drugs, just the "hard" ones. This is an emotionalist appeal to intrinsicist morality.

You've lost me. You seem to be saying here that drugs in general should be legal and that it is a mistake to single out individual drugs for special consideration, which would appear to contradict your earlier argument that we have to consider the individual cases and cannot generalize.

The problem is, Objectivism doesn't accept the intrinsicist view. Weapons and drugs and sex acts are not good or evil in themselves.

Rape is not evil in itself? Child molestation isn't wrong in itself? Promiscuity isn't undesirable in itself? Is that your position?

There is something off about the desire to continue this discussion as if Objectivism will provide us with intrinsic grounds for judging sexual acts.

You seem to be equating intrinsicism with any generalized moral judgment, which is incorrect. The intrinsic theory of value "holds that the good is inherent in certain things or actions as such, regardless of their context and consequences, regardless of any benefit or injury they may cause to the actors and subjects involved." [Emphasis added] Where in what I've been discussing have I ignored the context and the consequences to the actors and subjects involved? This whole thread has been about the consequences for the people involved, for their self-esteem and for the quality of their lives. That's how Objectivism evaluates the morality of an action -- by reference to the consequences for the actors and subjects.

I'm simply baffled at the anger and hostility you've displayed in response to this discussion. I see no justification for it whatsoever!

- Bill

Post 115

Monday, August 3, 2009 - 3:07am

Teresa:

thanx for pulling up the examples on the evolution of pain :) that's the kind of objective discussion i hope to find on an objectivist forum, so i'll answer it from my personal experience only, as i'm not so versed in medical, philosophical or psychological sources:

pain is a sensory information to the brain that the body is in some way damaged or near being damaged - as every sensory input, pain can also be evaluated in the brain and reactions (to a certain degree) changed - thus John can control the pain for the growth of muscles and i enjoy the pain for my own pleasure (well - some forms of pain)

there's three distinction i've come up with so far while discussing this topic in various venues:

a) the goal for which the pain is endured/controlled
b) the threshold where pain can not be endured any longer
c) the intensity that makes pain very similar to pleasure

a) the goal i think we have already coverd is sth most of you accept as a worthwhile (albeit negative) aspect of certain painful activies towards this goal - better health, personal growth, any value you deem valuable enough to push the pain to the background as far as your endurance and control allow

b) this threshold is where most people begin to disagree as every individual has a different threshold for different pains - where i also want to include emotional or psychological pain, as these thresholds vary extremely from person to person
and from situation to situation: in most sexualities the threshold for pain is greatly enhanced during sex (i think some hormones, like adrenalin and others, play a role in this also), experiencing certain acts as pleasurable in an erotic encounter, which in an everyday situation you'd find quite painful
question here is: what is still moral to endure for which end? the benefits can only be judged by each individual: no one can tell me where my threshold is, what i am willing to endure (or find pleasurable) to which end - you can only consistently evaluate your own premises and goals to reach such a moral decision

c) this intensity brings us back to sm - pain like pleasure have the same intensities which, to a large degree, are regulated by the same physical, neurological and hormonal reactions - thus a light caress can produce the same arousal as a lash with the whip
however they are motivated by differing circumstances: just like a caress can tickle in non-erotic circumstances, thus the lash will hurt instead of arouse - and that's where i think the boundaries (if they ever existed) get crossed in sex: to me the intensity of a caress, of a lash, of a mere look or thought can create such powerful arousal (and it's following physical changes) that i do no longer care to distinguish (up to my threshold) between them, but only to experience

so what is immoral about craving this intensity?

Bill:

i was not personally attacking you for 'negativity', but the fact that most arguments brought up by e.g. John or Teresa focused exclusively on the negative aspects (especially the psychological underpinnings of pain, self-esteem, evasion) that sm is indeed prone to - i'm not denying that there are such cases in sm, but that it is only one side of sm ... just like 'The Fountainhead' being interpreted as irrational selfishness by many readers, thus claiming to be objectivists and having a philosophical basis for their whims (yes: that happens quite often here in germany)
i was just getting bored with defending against sth that is not part of my experience, nor part of sm - there will always be lunatics who jump any band-wagon that mimicks their tunes - but no responsible sadomasochist would get involved with them: it's boring as hell to keep prepping up a week ego that craves to be punished because it cannot stand on it's own two feet ... to cop a quote: 'kicking ass is hard work' and i want to make sure i get my reward for that work, not feed it to a weak parasite

as for the other sexualities i think we have to come up with very specific definitions first to be able to judge them as moral or immoral - e.g. the point you brought up below:

-pedophilia: i like your idea of placing the boundary at the age of puberty for pedophilia becoming an questionable sexuality - however there's two questions i'd like to ask in this regard:
a) is the age of puberty for you irrespective of the actual numerical) age of a child? many people would also argue that the emotional and psychological deveolpment of a child (much harder to pin-point) would be more important than the physical changes of puberty
b) what would you call the interest in sex by children not yet in puberty? our kids (5, 7, 13) not only ask a lot of questions about sex, but also display an alarming (to me: i'm a lesbian, i only like women, and they are all boys!) interest in playing with their little cocks at any occasion - they even have erections from such arousal ... so how does an adult deal with this sexuality (yes, we still encourage it, though not in all situations) without being accused of pedophilia? am i allowed to have such interest in my children, even allow them to experiment, not only in my presence, but also with my body and my help? or am i simply not allowed to enjoy (sexually) this 'learning-experience' ;)
i think children have their own sexuality (especially under age of puberty) which warrants much more investigation - not just to be able to understand what it is like for children (from an adult point of view), but also how adults can relate to such sexuality whith theirs being quite different

- promiscuity: repeated, often short-time, sexual contacts with many partners (with the connotation of not forming family-oriented relationships)
why is promiscuity so depraved in objectivism? because we cannot find 'the expression of our highest values' in many individuals? if we lived in an objectivist world we'd find exactly that: many individuals that would be worthy of that expression! just like Dagny did ;)
even the usually short duration would not be contrary to objectivism if i would like to express these values in sexual terms for a short while only, and then turn to other plans and projects again that consume my time, interests, ressources
same goes for 'family-oriented relationship': i don't have to marry the woman of my dreams and have children with her to express my values - i can enjoy the sex that her values can give me without additional values of more permanency
as for the 'highest' values: does it have to be 'miss-perfect' or not at all?

we're getting there ;)
two more sexualities on the table for discussion :)
hack away :D
VSD

Post 116

Monday, August 3, 2009 - 3:22am

My only goal was to see if there is any evidence of a biological distinction between sadomasochism as there are for other forms of sexuality. There is precious little clinical, objective, dispassionate information out there, and that really surprises me.

Post 117

Monday, August 3, 2009 - 3:29am

Personally, I think that the emotional and/or psychological development worries of the child are much overblown [to the advantage of psychologists] and fueled by the ignorance of mis-informed laypersons - the 'puritanical' I had been referring to, the 'status-quo' conservativism which seeks to maintain control over others, especially thru the myth of the 'delicate' youngsters...

Post 118

Monday, August 3, 2009 - 4:43am

Teresa
There is precious little clinical, objective, dispassionate information out there, and that really surprises me.
i'm not so surprised - the target group is relatively small and extremely diverse (so of no real interest to society or state) - until recently (the last ten years?) sm was still a 'clinical sickness' listed with violence, spouse abuse, etc. (not even an idc classification of it's own!) - denmark was one of the first to withdraw this classification from the idc codes, the u.s. also no longer list it as an illness, though in most countries we're still 'deviants of the norm'
i believe the reason for the lack of 'clinical, objective, dispassionate information' is it's diversity: though there's one group sm / bdsm under which such acts are grouped, and scientiests from all fields have tried to characterise this group, there's more diversity among sm people than one definition can handle (notice e.g. the expansion to bdsm: bondage&domination being included in sadomasochism) - which also makes empirical evaluation almost impossible: the 'definition of one' is not representative data
also just like homosexuality there's no 'genus sadomasochalis' we can blame for enjoying pleasure in a different way - no 'genetic' defect or deviation that could 'prove' sadomasochism ... though i might be tempted to still argue for a 'genus homosexualis' as both my brothers are gay ;) but again i'm lacking empirical data to support such claims and no member of my families (blood or chose) expressed any sm-leanings :(

Robert
that's exactly the reason why i find this discussion so worthwhile: to change this conservatism we have to find a consistent morality first with which we can go out and argue against these age-old prejudices - only then can we hope to change society, and much later the laws ... alas it's an up-hill battle - as you rightly say: why should the current status-quo change if they already have the power to see and do (and make other's do) things their way?
but let's get the first step done first - the morality of sexuality!
what's your take on pedophilia or promiscuity?

VSD

Post 119

Monday, August 3, 2009 - 7:36am