| | Once again, I will try to "catch up" with the commentary on this board.
Mr. Humphreys writes, in regard to Mr. Bond's promiscuity: "I don't personally think that that type of sex life should be a problem for Objectivists."
Oh, how I object!
This is an excerpt from http://solohq.com/Articles/Stolyarov/The_Public-Private_Ethical_Distinction.shtml:
"The nature of romantic love as a strictly private undertaking can be derived from its exclusivity; this relationship is both the most proximate possible between two individuals, and a function possessing entirely its own psychological "plane," which is not shared by any other emotions, attractions, or interests. To grant such a consideration to two or more people (as in the case of adultery or polygamy) would be to dilute its effect on each and thus turn a profound appreciation into flimsy, superficial promiscuity. Any such love that is "shared" is thereby corrupted, not amplified (in absolute refutation to the collectivists' seemingly contradictory, but in fact perfectly consistent proclamations of "free love" and "socially planned breeding")."
Mr. Bachler: Your condemnation of Bond Films for their sexual promiscuity is quite funny. Ayn Rand loved the first Bond film "Dr. No" and maybe others too. But "Dr. No" definitely contains the type of promiscuity and perversions of good taste you seem to hate.
Mr. Stolyarov: I have indeed read Rand's review of the film, and will state that, however greatly I admire her judgment, I cannot accept it unquestionably on all issues. Matters of sexuality are among the subjects where we diverge. Utilizing fundamental Objectivist premises, I have reached the conclusion that the only manner in which fysical intercourse can be "noble" is if it indeed relates to the highest object of one's valuation, i.e. in an exclusive, married, monogamous relationship, and if not a trace of this conduct leaks into public view. Rand's attitude toward this subject was far too lax, in my estimation, which led her to some unfortunate actions, including an affair with Nathaniel Branden which ended up destroying a most productive intellectual and business partnership.
If you would like to glimpse upon a viewpoint more compatible with my thoughts on such displays, you have but to examine the general paradigm of the Victorian era, when some of the loftiest esthetics were orginated, without almost any reference to promiscuity and lust in public.
It seems fitting at his point to address a claim made more recently by Mr. Bisno.
Mr. Bisno: Drugs are, (at least the harder ones) toxic chemicals which directly alter the physical functioning of brain cells. In pornography, the only chemicals released are ones which naturally occur within the brain and which the brain is naturally able to handle just fine. Unless you wish to contend that dopamine is neurotoxic now... Higher purpose? And what such higher purpose would you cite? and why is sexuality enjoyed as an end in itself, not genuine happiness? The only 'higher purpose' is one's own long term self interest. "Vulgar, base sexuality" does not harm one if calculated rationally, but does cause pleasure in context, and thus I see no reason to consider it vulgar or base. The idea that sexuality is base or vulgar is a platonic/christian superstition based on the mind body dichtomy, with a "pure" soul and "impure" flesh. As I dont buy into the religious framework, this dichtomy strikes me as wholly unfounded.
Mr. Stolyarov: I begin my response with another passage from "The Public-Private Ethical Distinction"
"Of course, intimate gossip is not the main culprit in the violation of this principle of proper etiquette. That role, in the past forty years, has been played by the mass media, in its wanton expositions of bedroom scenes and scantiness of clothing obviously not meant for the public consumption. As a result, note that not a hint of romance is present in these portrayals, not a suggestion that two individuals are demonstrating the highest possible valuation toward one another, not a speck of the intellectual and far more delicate facet of love. Instead, what is seen is crude lust, as for a chunk of meat, with all the corresponding (and ever-escalating in magnitude) rapist-butcher attitudes pervading modern popular culture. Along with the imagery, which is steadily becoming pornographic even on "mainstream" television (which I proudly do not watch; previews and commercials have been sufficient to avert me), there has seeped from the ghettos a whole army of profane expressions, note, almost all of them jargon referring to intimate details which should have been consigned to the realm of private romantic love. (The other "swear words" are expressions either of bodily or cognitive malfunctions, or of routine hygienic functions that are no one's business.) This is the brazen, crusadingly nihilistic consequence of a society incapable of respecting the private realm."
The fact is, pornografy and its derivatives are detrimental to self-interest, in that they divert the highest form of admiration possible for a human being into a few obscene and personally detached images. If we grant that polygamy, the "sharing" of love with a third party person utterly destroys the significance of love, what about the "sharing" of love with a mere image, something even less animate, rational, or beneficial to the self?
As for the release of dopamine, there have been studies (which I have read over the years from a variety of sources) that demonstrated that excessive "stimulation" of this sort is in fact detrimental to longevity and can pose long-term health problems. Among the effects I can recall are shortages of dopamine and serotonin in the brain, the excess production of hormones and their circulation through the blood in poisonous quantities, the loss of energy and its diversion from one's work, swifter aging, "pornografy addiction" and desensitization, wherein thousands of patients have shown, systematically, to have degenerated to further stages of depravity, beginning to observe violent pornografy or even to engage in rape. Other studies have shown that abstinence from fysical intercourse, in men of all sorts, from Nikola Tesla and Immanuel Kant to sterile patients in mental hospitals, can raise life expectancy by some 10-15 years.
I have even at one time written a yet unpublished paper on "Sexual Imagery in the Media" and its harmful fysiological effects. Commentary such as yours renders me prone to releasing it into the public domain. If you have any question about my sources for this information, I shall sate your curiosity upon the paper's publication.
Are pornografy or "light pornografy" indicative of one's pursuit of happiness or self-interest? From all areas of analysis, fysical and spiritual, the answer is a resounding no.
I am
G. Stolyarov II
|
|
