Flibbertigibbet

What I like about you, Flibbert, is that you are so very inductive. Even if someone were to disagree with you, which I don't, it would be over abstractions that you've already reduced to concretes - and that's a very pleasant disagreement indeed! (More like a mutually enjoyable search for truth. Which is, of course, obviously your intent.)

I, for one, am grateful, Flibby! (I hope you aren't put off by my intimate use of a diminutive. ;)

I think that might be the best compliment I've received from my blog ever! Thank you!

And of course I don't mind the diminutive, especially when coupled with such kind words!

Flib, you've come out of that mess smelling like a rose, it seems. I don't know if Jason means to endorse a Platonic denial view or if Ergo means to endorse hedonistic preversions, but it seems you've managed to avoid either.

Good for you!

As for your scenarios (dating mistakes and settling), they illustrate precisely how one would morally, although tragically, end up sleeping with less than one's ideal. (Drama!)

But I do disagree on one point: masturbation is not sex. Sex is between two people. Sex involves the process of selecting another person. That is philosophically meaningful. Because of that, it's in a different category. Peikoff had a good reason for putting it that way in his lecture. Does that make sense or am I being vague?

As a clarification, the troubles I see with both sides:

On Ergo's side, I believe it is irresponsible, philosophically speaking, to simply declare that Objectivist morality allows sex "without love." If one means the full and total perfect romantic love that is often (though not always!) meant by "love" in Objectivism, then yes that can be true. But (und this is a BIG but) that is not a blank check, and there is quite a lot more to it then that.

For instance, Dr. Peikoff's recent Q&A speaks of how deeply one is in love, which definitely says there are levels of it. Certainly if one uses the latter definition of "love," then "sex without love" would mean sex totally without spiritual admiration, and that is definitely bad. Defining one's terms is critically important in this kind of discussion.

Furthermore, tearing down the structure of intrinsic thought without putting into place the structure of objective thought is helping subjectivism. It leaves one rudderless in the dark.

Highlighting the moral possibility of the lesser forms of sex without highlighting their total inferiority; i.e. what one gives up with them, and also clearly defining that hedonism is immoral is a de facto endorsement of hedonism. Kind of like damning with faint praise.

Jason's error is much simpler, if he indeed makes this error. If he's saying that morality never ever ever ever permits sex with less than the ideal then your examples just clearly blow that out of the water.

Don't let the size of those two arguments fool you. I don't have long arguments with religionists, either. There's nothing to argue. But because the subjectivists often cloak in reason, it takes more untangling. Not, again, that I am accusing either side of either of the former.

I don't think Jason is saying that sex must always be predicated on some super-high-mega-holy-untouchable-ineffable love. I am extending him some benefit of the doubt, but it strikes me as odd that even an Objectivist noob would avoid that mistake and Jason's discourse seems mature, thoughtful, and developed enough for me to make that assumption.

I extend a similar benefit of the doubt to Ergo, while supporting your advice on how to best clarify and support his position.

As for masturbation, perhaps I am mistaken as it has been a while since I've listened to the Peikoff Q&A, but I thought that he offered a different definition of "sex," one that does subsume masturbation.

Based on what I've seen of the two of these gentlemen, I am more willing than usual to believe that this really is an innocent misunderstanding of the points the two are trying to make.

Even so, I will concede that it is a sex act of a rather different nature and should in most contexts be regarded as distinct from all those acts that do include other people. I offer the masturbation case as an outlier to consider in the discussion of sex as -- per our previous discussion -- it does offer a fair substitute for partnered sex, a means of satisfying one's biological need for sex, in absence of a partner.

Flibbert,

You have stated my position fairly; although I don't understand why people simply can't understand it directly from reading my post itself.

I wanted to point out that Rand's quote on sex (the often misunderstood quote) is an attack on *ideological* positions advocated by religious fundamentalists or by hedonists. She wants to attack those who adopt these views as their metaphysical view of sex and love, not of those who accept her position but find no other alternative than to have sex with people they don't really love (due to circumstancial issues or just pure bad luck in the dating market).

Rand did not intend to comment on *every* *single* *specific* individual case where a person is faced with engaging in sex or not.

I simply don't understand how people like Jason start out on a presumption and get all arrogant about it without first reading my post carefully and then thinking about the implications of their own logical propositions. He made it sound like Objectivism viewed sex without love as dogmatically anathema--and then rudely chided me for pointing out that it is not!

Daayyaamn! :)

P.S. Inspector, I thought my post amply clarified that sex without love is less than ideal, not perfect, etc. etc., and I also layed great emphasis in pointing out that Objectivism's union of sex and love is indisputable and should not be overlooked. However, my point was to caution people from holding it as a dogmatic and instrinsic principle, as value in itself, without understanding why, when, in whose context, and how.
Perhaps, you're saying I should have been even more forcefully explicit about these views.

P.P.S:

I agree with Inspector in that I don't consider masturbation (with one's own self) as sex--perhaps, I'd concede that masturbation with another (mutually or otherwise) may be considered sex. I'll have to think about it more though.

And what is Peikoff's view? I'm not aware of it. COuld you offer his definition of sex that makes you believe that masturbation is subsumed by it?

If I had my CD with Peikoff's Q&A handy, I would have listened to it and given you the definition, but I don't. (I'm not sure where it is.)

I personally count anything that satisfies the sexual need as sex, which subsumes masturbation. Peikoff's definition was formulated differently, though.

The reason I would argue that masturbation leverages the same basic values as sex with a partner is due to the role of fantasy involved in the act. While sex with a partner is a "celebration of [one]self and of existence" (Ayn Rand quoted in OPAR, p344 in my copy) projected outward, fantasy allows the individual to evince the same response internally.

You wouldn't masturbate thinking about someone or something you hate any more than you would marry someone or something you hate.

So, if someone could go look up what Peikoff says about masturbation in his Q&A, that would probably be most helpful to this discussion.

Ergo,

I think what would help your case is to define how you think people should have high and demanding (non-intrinsic) standards, why they should have them, give a condemnation of hedonism and the hedonistic side of the misinterpretations of Objectivism.

Take your language: "less than ideal" and "not perfect." That in reference to a life without love? To lowering your standard from "a perfect union of mind and body" to "you're the least despicable that I can find?" I'm sorry but that reminds me of a Penny Arcade comic where a man is being barbecued alive by a flamethrower and is saying, "things could be better."

Just because it isn't immoral doesn't mean that it doesn't, well... suck. Objectivism's view toward romantic and ideal sex is one of breathless reverence for a sublime greatness - the very best of what human life has to offer. When you talk about settling for sex as a loveless affair, you need to make it clear just how far from ideal this is. Not to morally condemn those who, tragically, can do no better, but rather to make sure that those who give up are fully aware of how much they stand to lose.

For the record, again, I'm giving both of you the benefit of the doubt and am not accusing either of anything. I'm saying, "well, if this is not your position, then let's hear it!"

I love this:

"Objectivism's view toward romantic and ideal sex is one of breathless reverence for a sublime greatness."

Well put!

"So, if someone could go look up what Peikoff says about masturbation in his Q&A, that would probably be most helpful to this discussion."

Well, I just looked it up and I was wrong!

You may want to savor that. It's the first time I've ever mis-remembered a point like that. I am usually uncannily accurate.

Anyhow, here:

"Q: Is masturbation sex…?

A: Yes it is Sex; sex is any contact with and pleasure from the genitals. It does not say what form of contact – despite our president [Clinton] – and it does not say who or whether it’s you yourself. If you get pleasure from scratching your back, that is not sex… but if it’s the right area, it is!”

(note also that the "despite our president" comment got big laughs")