The Morality of Sexual Preference

Vera wrote,

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

Okay. I guess it depends on the psychological origins of the orientation as to how you evaluate it.

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 . . .

The reason I set it at the age of puberty is simply to remove any ambiguity as to what it is we were discussing. Whether or not the age of consent should be set higher is another question, which could also be addressed. I'm not prepared to comment on this one way or the other. There is also the issue of sexual exploitation of a child by an adult, which is a different issue from a case of two children of similar ages having sex.

. . . - 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.

I tend to agree.

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' ;)

All good questions, to which there are no easy answers. I don't know what it's like in Germany, but in the American Anglo-Saxon culture, there still exists a fair amount of prudishness and sexual repression, even in our sexually enlightened age. So, it's difficult to know what is healthy sexuality and what isn't, especially developmentally. Obviously, there's nothing wrong with masturbation, but overt displays of it in a social context is not something you'd want to encourage if only out of respect for the sensibilities of other people.

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 ;)

Right. The Objectivist argument against promiscuity, as I understand it, is that a promiscuous person is one who is unable to sustain a happy relationship with anyone, which is why he or she keeps moving from partner to partner. The person is either making poor choices, doing something to sabotage the relationship, or is seeking a sense of self-worth from the number of people that he or she is able to seduce. As Nathaniel Branden once put it, "Promiscuous people sometimes say, 'I like variety.' One could well ask them, 'What is it you think you are varying?' If the first relationship out of ten is no good, what good are the other nine? And if it was good, why the other nine at all? Such a person is confessing by his promiscuity that he needs the constant sanction of having people desire him. Yesterday's conquest doesn't make him feel any better today." (Basic Principles of Objectivist Psychology, Lecture 16.)

Of course, there's nothing wrong with long-term serial monogamy. Objectivism doesn't necessarily hold to the "until death do us part" commitment of lifelong marriage. But it does endorse the value of romantic love with a special partner over sex with just anyone you happen to find attractive. Not that the former is always easy to get. Far from it, but at least it's an ideal worth striving for. No one is saying here -- at least I'm not -- that suboptimal alternative sexualities should be moralistically and categorically denounced. That's not my view of morality at all. Morality is simply a means to an end -- a way of maximizing one's long-term happiness.

In her notes to The Fountainhead, Rand characterizes Howard Roark as follows: "Until his meeting with Dominique, he has had affairs with women, perfectly cold, emotionless affairs, without the slightest pretense at love. Merely satisfying a physical need and recognized by his mistresses as such." (Journals of Ayn Rand, p. 96)

. . . 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?

Nope.

- Bill

Post 121

Monday, August 3, 2009 - 2:03pm

but overt displays of it in a social context is not something you'd want to encourage if only out of respect for the sensibilities of other people.
................

No - it is out of fear of repercussions by those prudists, who have the coerciveness of 'law' behind them to enforce their human hatredness [tho, of course, they may not see it that way - but that is the baseline of it]

Post 122

Monday, August 3, 2009 - 2:47pm

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

Here's the problem I see with this, you can keep changing the definition of sadomasochism that leaves out the characteristics of inflicting or receiving physical pain or psychological humiliation until you are left with an idea that no longer pertains to the original definition of sadomasochism, but then you can continue to claim that these kinds of sadomasochistic acts that don't entail these characteristics I describe above still should be identified as sadomasochism, and that it would be wrong then to generalize and pass judgment on sadomasochism because there are so many different 'kinds' to it, some of those kinds are positive. Yet if I pressed you for an example of a positive aspect of sadomasochism, I would assume the act itself would still contain the characteristic of inflicting or receiving physical pain or psychological humiliation. What you are contending against, the dwelling on a 'negative aspect' of sadomasochism is unwarranted, because I'm not dwelling on the negative aspects of sadomasochism, I am rather identifying the essetial characteristics of a particular set of sex acts that we can generalize and form a concept for them called "sadomasochism".

We could also do this for any number of concepts, like rape (please note I am in no way comparing consensual sadomasochism to rape) we could claim that we really ought to look at all different kinds of rape, like date rape, child rape, etc and claim that it would be insufficient to generalize about all kinds of rape. But we can, because there are essential characteristics to all kinds of rape that allow us to form the concept of "rape", those characteristics being non-consensual sex acts.

So I question the moving of the goal post here on what defines "sadomasochism".

(Edited by John Armaos on 8/03, 2:59pm)

Post 123

Tuesday, August 4, 2009 - 12:19pm

Bill:
- but overt displays of it in a social context is not something you'd want to encourage if only out of respect for the sensibilities of other people
i tend to agree with Robert on this one: of course there's a boundary to be considered where others may feel their sensibilities threatened - but those sensibilities should not be defined by prudishness, but by natural privacy that even a child learns at an early age, out of his own desire to do things on his own - encouraging this privacy should solve this problem easily, except that we're not teaching our children natural privacy, but 'social morality' (do's and dont's), which they often eschew as 'defiance against establishment' (before they return to the fold and become the next 'establishment')
the question which government or society would be more restrictive in this respect does only factor when we try to find out where natural privacy begins in all the mess we've created over centuries - finding the correct balance between natural privacy and morality under all our social training would take quite a long time - or some very courageous individuals simply trying it out ;)

- one who is unable to sustain a happy relationship with anyone
so again we're focussing on the negative aspects of promiscuity: not wanting to have long-term monogamous relationships is equated with being unable to have them, low self-esteem, evasion, etc. being the psychological basis - has anyone even tried to find empiric evidence for that 'fact'?
to answer Branden: "who said the first out of ten was 'no good'? it was wonderful and i'm going to seek another nine like that because they have various values and personalities to offer me i could not all find in the first one!"
i'm not seeking sanction of a victim, i'm seeking values to trade and these values are not longterm, but short-term - and they stack up to quite a bit of value in my book - every day :P

- nothing wrong with long-term serial monogamy
so where does promiscuity switch from short-term recurring involvement with different partners to long-term recurring involvement with different partners?
i'm serious - no baiting implied: i know one woman who has repeated short-term affairs with a handful (well - almost two handfuls actually) of women she has known as friends for many years, but does not wish to get involved with any of them in a relationship because she prefers to live as a single woman (for whatever reason - that's actually the part i understand best because i am a loner myself)
so what's immoral about that? she has proven through years of friendship that she is able to sustain long-term relationships, she is not seeking 'sanction from conquests' as she's chosen her 'affairs' quite meticulously for their values to her, and her self-worth she places way above any partnership she might find in a 'romantic love relationship'

John:
the 'negative aspects' i was referring to were the basis in neurosis, low self-esteem and evasion - not pain or humiliation - i never claimed they are not part of sm - just as they are not at the basis of any sm act
as for an all-inclusive definition of sm: you'll never get one - not from me anyway, if you keep insisting on 'pain & humiliation' - try role-play, power-exchange, fetishes, kink - they all are lumped in under bdsm for one simple reason: they cross the boundary of what is considered 'sexual' - no one challenges 'rough sex', but 'pain' is the boundary, no one challenges 'gender-roles', but 'domination' is the boundary, no one challenges 'dressing up nice', but 'fetish' is the boundary, no one challenges 'trying sth new in bed', but 'kink' is the boundary ... all those who crossed that boundary into sth past 'sexual', yet finding it arousing for themselves, is grouped under bdsm - simply because they've taken 'sexual' to an extreme most people would not be able to follow to

- those characteristics being non-consensual sex acts
i could challenge you on the 'date-rape' question (as well as 'spouse-rape' which in most countries is still legal!) - until very recently it was not even discussed in 'polite society' or in court - the point you make though is 'non-consensual sex acts' to be able to group them - such a grouping you will not find for 'bd/sm', just as society and law have not yet found it for 'rape' (e.g. is psychological 'rape' by your psychologist also 'rape'?) - so we can only continue to define to the best of our abilities (as i've tried to do) and take our moral evaluation from there

All:
and that's what i'm proposing to do here: to try to find a moral evaluation process, not based on each specific act that could or could not be grouped under one heading, but a guideline of how to evaluate it while discussing all different sexualities and their aspects:

- check my premises: is my sm stemming from neurosis, low self-esteem, evasion or from crossing a boundary into a much intenser sexuality? is promiscuity stemming from my inability to sustain a monogamous relationship or from my desire/requirement to live short-term sexual relationships only? is pedophilia stemming from some 'anal phase' i have not yet got out of or from my love for my children and the wish to teach them, help them grow, love them in any way they deserve?

- apply my premises consistenly to reach my goal of sexual pleasure: am i hiding behind moral sexuality to 'pass' or am i living my found sexuality openly, even to myself in acknowleding what really turns me on? am i ruining every sexual relationship i find by forcing it into a monogamous longterm partnership or am i enjoying the pleasure it can give me and move on before i destroy that pleasure? am i pushing my child away and teaching it morality or am i giving it every opportunity to express it's sexuality, even if society condemns me for it?

hope you all keep adding your evaluations to all sexualities we already listed - and maybe some we haven't listed yet ;)
VSD

Post 124

Tuesday, August 4, 2009 - 1:00pm

Vera:

the 'negative aspects' i was referring to were the basis in neurosis, low self-esteem and evasion - not pain or humiliation - i never claimed they are not part of sm - just as they are not at the basis of any sm act
as for an all-inclusive definition of sm: you'll never get one - not from me anyway, if you keep insisting on 'pain & humiliation' - try role-play, power-exchange, fetishes, kink - they all are lumped in under bdsm for one simple reason: they cross the boundary of what is considered 'sexual' - no one challenges 'rough sex', but 'pain' is the boundary, no one challenges 'gender-roles', but 'domination' is the boundary, no one challenges 'dressing up nice', but 'fetish' is the boundary, no one challenges 'trying sth new in bed', but 'kink' is the boundary ... all those who crossed that boundary into sth past 'sexual', yet finding it arousing for themselves, is grouped under bdsm - simply because they've taken 'sexual' to an extreme most people would not be able to follow to

This definition loses the meaning of the word. Anything that "crosses the boundary" sexually can include so many things to so many people as to include sexual activities that even self-proclaimed S&Mers would find objectionable, including pedophilia, bestiality, rape. All of those things "cross the boundary", or it could include things that most people would not find "crosses the boundary" but are simply more mainstream sexual preferences like lingerie, big muscles or a hairy chest for a man, big breasts or tanned body for a woman, etc. We would have to define the sex act first to even understand why it even "crosses" the boundary and before that we would have to know what that boundary is. "Crossing the boundary" is not a sufficient definition, rather it is a phrase used to indicate one's "judgment" on the matter.

I think you're just trying to muddle the definition of S&M to the point that it makes it impossible to pass any kind of judgment on it because there's no way to know what anyone is even talking about. Sorry but I think words have meanings.

those characteristics being non-consensual sex acts
i could challenge you on the 'date-rape' question (as well as 'spouse-rape' which in most countries is still legal!)

You *could* challenge that, and you would lose that challenge. Simply because there's no tenable argument that "date rape" or "spousal rape" is consensual. Rape by definition is a non-consensual sex act, and it shouldn't be hard for anyone to understand what "consent" means. If you don't believe there is an objective meaning to consent, I think we have a bigger disagreement here philosophically than what I had originally thought.

By the way Vera what do you mean when you write "sth", I don't know what that means.

(Edited by John Armaos on 8/04, 1:04pm)

Post 125

Tuesday, August 4, 2009 - 1:47pm

natural privacy that even a child learns at an early age, out of his own desire to do things on his own - encouraging this privacy should solve this problem easily, except that we're not teaching our children natural privacy, but 'social morality' (do's and dont's), which they often eschew as 'defiance against establishment' (before they return to the fold and become the next 'establishment')
....................

excellent point, one almost never mentioned, this developing of 'natural privacy' - not from any sense of guilt [which seems to be the present 'norm' for having or claiming privacy] but from one's valuing of oneself and those aspects of oneself which are cherished and not desired to be sullied by others, certainly not of one's own choosing... it would be good if someone would find this a topic of developing interest - history and methodology of, psychological healthiness of - in the same means and research and initiating explorations in thinking of as has gone into, for instance, 'the question of adolescence - a valid concept or not', or 'the entrepeneurial spirit - a natural outgrowth of the self, a cultural inducement, or an aberration', and so on...

Post 126

Tuesday, August 4, 2009 - 2:16pm

John:

"crossing the boundary"
was not meant to be a replacement for a missing definition - i was simply trying to describe how most aspects of bdsm have developed - if you prefer to define bdsm only through the commonality of 'pain & humiliation' please say so and be done with it - but also be aware that you'll be missing quite a lot of activities in sm sexuality that are not defined by these two aspects
also please tell us why your definition of sm would then be moral or immoral

"consensual rape"
the definition of the word 'rape' is 'non-consesual sex '- the definition of the act that is called or not called rape is quite another question - that's why 'date-rape' or 'spouse-rape' or 'psychological rape' did not even exist until a few years ago - they were considered contradictions in themselves
in most countries of the world they still do not exist - even many marriage-laws sanction such 'non-consensual sex' acts as a 'right' in marriage - which is one reason why i would call such 'marriages' immoral: they sanction 'rape' and you give up the right to consent (or not) to any sexual act

"consent"
not that i believe we have such a disagreement as you hint at, but how do you define the 'consent' of a child that is not only physically, but also emotionally and psychologically dependant on it's parent? the question would be very relevant to our discussion on pedophilia ...

"sth"
simply means something - sorry if i picked up a wrong abbreviation there - i thought that was commonly known in the english langage - but i'm no expert - it's not my 'mother-tongue'

Robert:

- but from one's valuing of oneself and those aspects of oneself which are cherished
good description - points to investigate that come to mind are also:
how is a child forming these values?
why does it cherish certain parts of itself as private?

VSD

Post 127

Tuesday, August 4, 2009 - 2:21pm

the last possibly because it, until told otherwise, is the most pleasurable part of the self...

Post 128

Tuesday, August 4, 2009 - 2:54pm

that reminds me of another point i think Teresa made:
'not everything we enjoy is good for us' - maybe in this case i'd make an exception and trust the childs enjoyment of itself, the pleasure derived only out of itself before it get's distorted by experience, education, morality ...
VSD

Post 129

Tuesday, August 4, 2009 - 5:15pm

Vera

"crossing the boundary"
was not meant to be a replacement for a missing definition - i was simply trying to describe how most aspects of bdsm have developed - if you prefer to define bdsm only through the commonality of 'pain & humiliation' please say so and be done with it - but also be aware that you'll be missing quite a lot of activities in sm sexuality that are not defined by these two aspects
also please tell us why your definition of sm would then be moral or immoral

I don't know what "bdsm" is. I'm talking about sadomasochism, a term that has a definition to it. I don't really know if S&M is immoral. I didn't actually say I knew it was, but I suspect it is, because the acts themselves appear denigrating. Remember the original contention Vera between me and you was the analogy of athleticism to S&M on the comparison of "pain", so I went with that aspect of sexual behavior. To keep the conversation focused, I stuck with that specific behavior that is defined as sadomasochistic behavior. There's no reason to muddle the discussion with adding other sexual acts that do not fit that description.

"consensual rape"
the definition of the word 'rape' is 'non-consesual sex '- the definition of the act that is called or not called rape is quite another question - that's why 'date-rape' or 'spouse-rape' or 'psychological rape' did not even exist until a few years ago - they were considered contradictions in themselves
in most countries of the world they still do not exist - even many marriage-laws sanction such 'non-consensual sex' acts as a 'right' in marriage - which is one reason why i would call such 'marriages' immoral: they sanction 'rape' and you give up the right to consent (or not) to any sexual act

It doesn't matter that some societies allowed for certain types of rape to be legal, nor did it matter that some people regarded "date rape" as a contradiction, because they were always wrong to think that, and it was always wrong to let these things be legal. Reality is what it is, just because some people wish to contradict it doesn't make them right. There is no such thing as consensual rape.

"consent"
not that i believe we have such a disagreement as you hint at, but how do you define the 'consent' of a child that is not only physically, but also emotionally and psychologically dependant on it's parent? the question would be very relevant to our discussion on pedophilia ...

A child cannot give consent for sex, because they do not have the capacity to understand what sex is and all of its consequences, they don't understand what would be in their self-interests and can't make a rational decision. Therefore any sexual contact with a child is non-consensual and therefore rape.

Post 130

Tuesday, August 4, 2009 - 5:39pm

'not everything we enjoy is good for us' - maybe in this case i'd make an exception and trust the childs enjoyment of itself, the pleasure derived only out of itself before it get's distorted by experience, education, morality ...

When emotions are disconnected from value, and value from reality, neurosis takes over. Morality shouldn't "distort" value. In fact, morality is necessary to achieve values. There are many moral codes, but not all of them lead to reality based value. Some lead to value of the unreal. Others to worship of the worst in reality, or obfuscation of the good, while others focus on what "is," rather than we don't know about what isn't.

I agree with John here:

A child cannot give consent for sex, because they do not have the capacity to understand what sex is and all of its consequences, they don't understand what would be in their self-interests and can't make a rational decision. Therefore any sexual contact with a child is non-consensual and therefore rape.

They can't even remember to feed the dog!

Post 131

Wednesday, August 5, 2009 - 12:55am

jeez - talking to you two is like arguing at the point of a gun - but hey - helps keep my arguments consistent :P let's see if i can find words/arguments that can convince you ;)

John:

alright - i'll bite: for this posting only let's define sm as enjoying pain and let's compare it to athletes
the premises to consider are: where does the enjoyment of pain stem from? both cases are possible: in some cases it can come from low selfesteem or evasion, in some cases it can come from the intensity which at such high levels is virtually indistiguishable from pleasure - and i bet there's many other cases where it can also come from
the goals to consider are: am i consistently using my premises for the enjoyment of pleasure or fitness of body? again both cases are possible: in some cases it is only endured to reach a goal (physical fitness), in some cases it is enjoyed to reach a goal (sexual pleasure)
so tell me: who makes better use of the pain to reach their goal: the athlete or the sadomasochist?
the distinction is always in your premises and your goals - each one can go wrong on that path, has to make a choice whether to turn left (all the negativity) or turn right (all the positive aspects) - no political 'wings' implied :P
just as the sadmasochist can skip the evaluation of his premises and the consistent application to reach his goal, so can the athlete: for what purpose is a long-distance runner enduring that pain if he could keep his body healthy in a non-painful manner? or not running as a professional athlete to earn his livelihood? or run in a competition to win a prize?
it's the choice each has to make that either makes him a miserable, unfulfilled sadomasochist and a painridden loser of an athlete, or gives him sexual pleasure to match his happiness and health and prizes to mach his physical prowess
that's the point i want to make for the morality of a sexuality - if you find any premise that makes a sexuality immoral per se like non-consesual acts, then please name it - but enjoying pain contrary to enduring pain is not it

the non-consensual is btw also the reason why rape is not considered a sexuality - even in sm role-play of 'rape' there's always an agreement, a consent, reached before the act itself
so if 'consent is not a magic bullet' to validate sexual acts, then why is 'non-consent'? because leading objectivists have said so? Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden write lengthy paragraphs on the immorality of sm or promiscuity - are there as many paragraphs on date- and spouse-rape? (really asking - i haven't read all their works)

as for a child not having any clue about sex: have you ever investigated the sexuality of a child? what little i know from personal experience, almost all children i ever met have displayed some form of sexuality - be that cuddling, masturbating, ogling, something was always there - and was usually discouraged/forbidden by most adults around them - and you claim children don't know what sex is? or do you equate sex with fucking only (i.e. adult heterosexual genital intercourse)?

same goes for children being able to consent: as i pointed out already in post 120 and 127 there are certainly unclear boundaries how consistent or not the consent of a child can be - but claiming that they have no way to make fully informed decision about their own sexuality smacks of the prejudices pedophilia has encountered for ages: it's our kids that come to us and masturbate in our presence, they ogle us when we walk around naked in the house or the garden, they come cuddling not just for emotional closeness, but sometimes the sexual enjoyment of it
or have you never noticed the signs of sexual arousal in a child? maybe most people don't even know what they are when they claim children 'have no capacity to understand sex'
especially in cases of pleasure and well-being, children understand very well what is in their best interest - what makes them feel good ... what we as adults have to protect them from is not their pleasure, but explain and teach them the consequences: just as we don't deny our children sweets because they rot their teeth and make them overweight, but teach them to brush and excercise (which most children do anyway if only we let them run around as they wish), so we should not deny them sexual pleasure and sexual curiosity, but teach them about sexuality, to understand it's possiblities and their consequences

what you imly here is that every adult who sees children as sexual beings is forcing his own view of sexuality on a child - this horror has two components we already discussed: force, which would be indeed rape and ignorance, which would fall in the same category as evasion, low selfesteem, etc.
yes they exist - but children's sexuality is not governed by them only - and the worst part about this ignorance is that this prudishness to see and educate children as sexual beings has delivered them into the very hands they claim to protect them from - without a clue what's going on - knowledge (and experience) is power!

Teresa:

i've already agreed over and over that evasion, unquestioned values, etc. all lead to the consequences you describe - what i will never agree to is that most sexualities are based on these - there's always the sick and the healthy in every sexuality - but what is it that makes a sexuality per se immoral?

as for feeding the dog: they do remember doing that when it is for their own enjoyment of that dog - otherwise it's just an external task done for someone else - i'm not saying children are as fully responsible as that towards their outside world ;)
however their own sexuality is for their own enjoyment only - no one depends on it, no one is responsible for providing it, no one is harmed when they neglect it

so back to our topic: what defines any given sexuality and what makes that sexuality moral or immoral?

VSD

Post 132

Wednesday, August 5, 2009 - 10:52am

Vera, I said children don't have the 'full' capacity to understand sex and the consequences of it, I didn't say they don't have a 'clue' about it. That they have a clue about it is irrelevant. A retarded individual has a 'clue' about money but that doesn't mean they have the capacity to run an accounting firm. A child cannot consent to sex (consent implies two individuals engaging in an activity with each other) because a child, unlike an adult, does not have the capacity of an adult in regards to understanding the consequences of consenting to sex. We assume a rational choice can only be made if you have the capacity to make it, so a child not having the full capacity to understand sexual encounters, they can't make a rational choice. That's why children don't have full rights, they can't vote, any contract someone enters into with a child can be null and void (except for food and shelter), etc.

If a child masturbates in front of you, I'd hope you'd have the good sense to tell that child to only masturbate in private. Unless you want that child to turn into a dysfunctional adult that starts masturbating in public.

As far as athletes who take it too far in their training, and assuming they are not in a competition, then I would agree that they are not engaging in an activity that is in their self-interests. Because over-training leads to injury and is counter-productive to your health, it can lead to lean muscle tissue loss, more illness, physical injuries, and even excess bodyfat. There is no health benefit to it. So I don't understand the point here, if you're trying to get me to say "see, S&M is just the same as athletic activity because athletes want pain too", well you've only accomplished recognizing athletes taking it too far is harmful, not beneficial. But athletic activity doesn't have to entail over-training. And most athletes who find themselves over-training do so out of ignorance of what that over-training will do to their body. Over-training is not essential to athleticism.

children understand very well what is in their best interest - what makes them feel good ... what we as adults have to protect them from is not their pleasure, but explain and teach them the consequences:

This sentence is a contradiction Vera. If they understand very well what is in their best interests, then there is no necessity in explaining and teaching them the consequences of their actions, since as you say they already understand what's in their best interests.

what you imly here is that every adult who sees children as sexual beings is forcing his own view of sexuality on a child - this horror has two components we already discussed: force, which would be indeed rape

Well that's what I was talking about Vera. And consent or non-consent to engage in a sexual act with a child is the only thing relevant to the question you originally asked:

"how do you define the 'consent' of a child that is not only physically, but also emotionally and psychologically dependant on it's parent? the question would be very relevant to our discussion on pedophilia ..."

Am I missing something here? Of course a child should be taught what is or isn't acceptable sexual behavior (assuming the child is old enough to understand the subject matter discussed). But teaching children what is acceptable behavior has nothing to do with pedophilia, which is defined as having sex with a child.

but claiming that they have no way to make fully informed decision about their own sexuality smacks of the prejudices pedophilia has encountered for ages:

The prejudices of pedophilia? Did I read that right? Are you saying pedophilia is acceptable?
(Edited by John Armaos on 8/05, 11:04am)

Post 133

Thursday, August 6, 2009 - 12:25am

Vera:

You wrote,

it's the choice each has to make that either makes him a miserable, unfulfilled sadomasochist and a painridden loser of an athlete, or gives him sexual pleasure to match his happiness and health and prizes to mach his physical prowess
that's the point i want to make for the morality of a sexuality - if you find any premise that makes a sexuality immoral per se like non-consesual acts, then please name it - but enjoying pain contrary to enduring pain is not it

So you're saying that just as an athlete endures a certain amount of pain or discomfort in order to achieve a valued goal, so the sadomasochist does the same. The only difference is their respective goals or values. Correct?

The relevant difference, as I see it, is their underlying motivations. The pleasure for the masochist comes from the psychological value of the pain or humiliation, which then perversely causes an experience of sexual pleasure. For the athlete, the pain does not cause the enjoyment of winning the race. Do you see the difference? The sadomasochist must first value the experience of pain psychologically in order to get sexual pleasure from it, whereas for the athlete, the pain is not something that he values psychologically; it is rather a price that he must pay -- something that he has to give up -- in order to be successful. The masochist doesn't see the pain as something he has to give up in order to get the pleasure; the pain is a psychological value in itself, which, because it is a value, causes him to experience sexual pleasure.

the non-consensual is btw also the reason why rape is not considered a sexuality - even in sm role-play of 'rape' there's always an agreement, a consent, reached before the act itself.

Yes, but if rape is a bad thing, why is role-playing it a good thing? Suppose a person got sexually excited by donning a Nazi uniform with swastikas on it and pretending to torture and humiliate a Jew. Suppose he got off role playing it. Would you view this as perfectly acceptable behavior? Would you regard him as possessing a rational and healthy psychology? Or would you see his orientation as psychologically perverse?

so if 'consent is not a magic bullet' to validate sexual acts, then why is 'non-consent'?

I don't follow you here. You seem to be asking why non-consent is a magic bullet to validate sexual acts, but that couldn't possibly be what you're asking. What are you trying to say?

because leading objectivists have said so? Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden write lengthy paragraphs on the immorality of sm or promiscuity - are there as many paragraphs on date- and spouse-rape? (really asking - i haven't read all their works)

Actually, neither Rand nor Branden wrote "lengthy paragraphs on the immorality of sm or promiscuity." As far as I know, Branden wrote nothing on it. He did discuss it in his lecture series back in the '60's, but that is the extent of it, as far as I'm aware. The "quotation" I cited was from someone else's notes taken during Branden's lectures on Objectivist psychology. I attended the lectures and can vouch for the accuracy of the notes, which were close to verbatim, but as far as I know, Branden didn't publish anything on it. Rand wrote nothing on sm, and very little on promiscuity, except to disparage it in relation to her ideal of romantic love.

- Bill

(Edited by William Dwyer on 8/06, 12:34am)

Post 134

Thursday, August 6, 2009 - 3:44am

John:
i'm not going to answer your negativity anymore - i thought it was only meant towards my comparison of sm-pain to athlete-pain, but obviously you show the same negativity towards any kind of sexuality that is not adult straight monogamous genital intercourse
any other aspects i may or may not have to present as arguments are simply irrelevant to you so i'll stop presenting them and start asking you:
can you prove that any and every sadomasochistic, pedophilic, homosexual, polygamous or promiscous act or relationship is immoral, sick, psychologically unhealthy, based on evasion and low self-esteem?
is the experience of pleasure and comfort others experience in such sex and relationship to you so wholly evil that nothing but your definition of sexuality is correct, right and moral?
please name exceptions if that is not the case - otherwise i'll continue to ignore your negativity posts
ps: you nowhere said "full" capacity, but denied them "any" consent in sexual matters - if you change your mind about that, please say so, but don't imply that i misrepresented you

Bill:

i see your difference if you define sexual pain only in terms of perverse psychology - however i also brought up the intensity and diversity of pain that for many sadomasochists is indistinguishable from pleasure and is thus enjoyed without any psychological foundation, but physically - just as there are people who start with a psychological problem and believe sm can help them turn that into a positive sexual experience (or simply hide it), so there are also people that start with 'normal' sex, but rough it up a little and enjoy the physical pleasure, until one day they wake up and realise they have crossed over into sm (consciously or uncounsciously)
my point here is that sexual pleasure from pain is not inherently based in psychological disorder - as long as that's not the case i think it's not justified to call sm immoral, simply because some of us enjoy (some forms of) pain sexually

with role-play (especially the socially and politically motivated kind you describe) we enter a much more complex evaluation process, not only of sexuality, but also of social and politial correctness - as i tried to explain with the 'power-exchange', the competition to become better than her, to learn and grow, that i personally enjoy, it is extremely important for each sadomasochist to make sure his premises are not based in any psychological disorder - i cannot do this evaluation for any sadomasochist or any kind of role-play - some of it i do not understand myself and in some cases i'm even convinced that some sadomasochists have such issues at their basis
however we cannot go ahead and condemn them all as immoral simply because we do not understand some of them - even 'normal' straight couples enjoy the 'role-play' of 'dressing-up' for a date or a sexual encounter - do they feel they are ugly, socially inferior, physically not desireable, simply because they cannot face a sexual situation without that 'prop'?

the point of 'non-consent as magic bullet' has to be seen in context: i was arguing against certain acts that would be 'non-conseual' in my opinion, but have never been claimed as such by law, society or even objectivists (therefore the Rand and Branden examples) - non-consent only works automatically branding sth as immoral, if we actually define an act as non-consensual - and this brings us back to the psychological foundations you claim so often: if a normal wife feels unfulfilled or even disgusted by her husbands sexuality, yet submits to it because she was taught from childhood on that it is normal, legal, socially approved, that sth is wrong with her if she does not enjoy it, then she will never define that act as 'spouse-rape', as she 'consents' to it - so i tried to say 'be careful what you call consensual or non-consesual' they are not a magic bullet in both ways

as for the citations: sorry if i misrepresented those - as i already said, i've not yet read that much material by objectivists, so i was only taking your examples as an ever-recurring argument i have soooo often heard against sm and promiscuity (and against homosexuality) in objectivist forums: that some leading objectivist had proof that it was wrong (or at least not 'up-to-normal'), so everyone engaging in it must be somehow wrong or not fully consious of the motivation of his acts - thanx for showing me that that is not the case :)
though even disparaging one sexuality over another which is considered 'ideal' has to be proven as to it's merits ;)

VSD

Post 135

Thursday, August 6, 2009 - 10:38am

Vera,

You wrote:

see your difference if you define sexual pain only in terms of perverse psychology - however i also brought up the intensity and diversity of pain that for many sadomasochists is indistinguishable from pleasure and is thus enjoyed without any psychological foundation, but physically . . .

Hmm. No psychological foundation -- just physically? Physical pain, by its nature, is an unpleasant experience; it's experienced by the organism as inherently undesirable and is therefore a deterrent against physical damage to the organism-- a way of protecting the organism's physical health and integrity. To say, therefore, that physical pain, absent any psychological underpinnings, can sometimes be experienced as intrinsically pleasurable is difficult for me to understand or accept. I think there probably is a psychological basis for the pleasure, even though it may not be intuitively obvious. Biologically, it doesn't make sense that there wouldn't be.

. . . - just as there are people who start with a psychological problem and believe sm can help them turn that into a positive sexual experience (or simply hide it), so there are also people that start with 'normal' sex, but rough it up a little and enjoy the physical pleasure, until one day they wake up and realise they have crossed over into sm (consciously or uncounsciously)

Again, we have to distinguish between sm and dominance-submission. I briefly dated a woman who wanted to be forcibly taken. This is not my cup of tea, but at the time I wanted her so badly that I did use some force (with her consent). However, I didn't enjoy the necessity of having to do so. I would have preferred her more "willing" compliance. However, there was no infliction of pain or humiliation here. You could call this a form of dominance-submission, I suppose, but it certainly wasn't sm.

with role-play (especially the socially and politically motivated kind you describe) we enter a much more complex evaluation process, not only of sexuality, but also of social and politial correctness - as i tried to explain with the 'power-exchange', the competition to become better than her, to learn and grow . . .

I don't understand this "competition" that you're referring to. I don't view a sexual relationship as a contest.

. . . that i personally enjoy, it is extremely important for each sadomasochist to make sure his premises are not based in any psychological disorder - i cannot do this evaluation for any sadomasochist or any kind of role-play - some of it i do not understand myself and in some cases i'm even convinced that some sadomasochists have such issues at their basis
however we cannot go ahead and condemn them all as immoral simply because we do not understand some of them - even 'normal' straight couples enjoy the 'role-play' of 'dressing-up' for a date or a sexual encounter - do they feel they are ugly, socially inferior, physically not desireable, simply because they cannot face a sexual situation without that 'prop'?

No, no, of course not. But if the prop is itself the playful enactment of an immoral act like rape or physical abuse, whose role play forms the basis of the sexual excitement, then don't you see this as a problem? Recall the Nazi fantasy I mentioned. Do you think that's perfectly healthy and acceptable?

the point of 'non-consent as magic bullet' has to be seen in context: i was arguing against certain acts that would be 'non-conseual' in my opinion, but have never been claimed as such by law, society or even objectivists (therefore the Rand and Branden examples) - non-consent only works automatically branding sth as immoral, if we actually define an act as non-consensual - and this brings us back to the psychological foundations you claim so often: if a normal wife feels unfulfilled or even disgusted by her husbands sexuality, yet submits to it because she was taught from childhood on that it is normal, legal, socially approved, that sth is wrong with her if she does not enjoy it, then she will never define that act as 'spouse-rape', as she 'consents' to it - so i tried to say 'be careful what you call consensual or non-consesual' they are not a magic bullet in both ways.

Consent is defined by the willingness of the partner, not by any immoral or perverse reasons for the willingness. If the wife submits to her husband, because she believes it's her duty, that's certainly immoral and very unfortunate, but it is still consensual.

as for the citations: sorry if i misrepresented those - as i already said, i've not yet read that much material by objectivists, so i was only taking your examples as an ever-recurring argument i have soooo often heard against sm and promiscuity (and against homosexuality) in objectivist forums: that some leading objectivist had proof that it was wrong (or at least not 'up-to-normal'), so everyone engaging in it must be somehow wrong or not fully consious of the motivation of his acts - thanx for showing me that that is not the case :)

I wasn't aware that homosexuality was deemed morally objectionable in Objectivist forums. What forums are these? Rand disapproved of it, but it is my impression that her followers largely do not.

though even disparaging one sexuality over another which is considered 'ideal' has to be proven as to it's merits ;)

Well, sure, but what constitutes proof in the area of psychology? It's not quite the same level of proof that we would demand in the physical sciences. How do we "prove" that the man who gets off role playing a Nazi has an immoral psychology? By observing that this is not something that a normally healthy and morally integrated person would desire.

- Bill

(Edited by William Dwyer on 8/06, 11:23am)

Post 136

Thursday, August 6, 2009 - 12:10pm

- Physical pain, by its nature, is an unpleasant experience
no it's not - even if you don't go as far as sm you'll find many acts that are pleasurable in a sexual encouter (e.g. scratching, wrestling, biting, etc.), when your threshold for pain is much higher, that you would find painful without any sexual connotation - or maybe i'm talking more about women here than men ;)
also at a certain level of intensity any physical sensation can become blurred - think about deep-frozen ice at -100� celcius that feels 'hot' when you touch it, or a hot stove feeling cold if you don't know what you are touching - i'm not saying we should all muddle our senses here - please don't - im just saying that there are certain overlapping boundaries that can be crossed physically - though in many cases you do need a certain level of intellectual/psychological control to be able to reach this level

- I didn't enjoy the necessity of having to do so
then it's non-consensual, even if you 'consented' to get your goal fulfilled, and i wouldn't call it sm, even if you had hurt her or humiliated her
that's one more point btw.: if sm were indeed 'painful', 'humiliating', then sadomasochists wouldn't enjoy it in the long run and would stop - i don't go to my lover and tell her: 'hit me - i want to see if it turns me on' - i have such intense sex that even (minor) physical damage intensly hightens my arousal - and i want more of that, no matter what it's called

- competition
stupid question probably, but you do understand the exhiliaration of competition per se? of becoming better than those i judged to be better, stronger, more mature, than me - the exhiliaration of learning new things that i thought i could never do, as well as the confirmation that i became better than 'my betters' by winning any contest against them - i've simply taken this competition to one (of many) sexual play(s) and i found it fits quite nicely with sm - physical strength and endurance are just as big a turn-on as emotional maturity or intellectual strength - and besting that strength is the ultimate turn-on (even in non-sm sexualities)
however i do not approach my whole relationships as a competition - there's many more aspects to that, than which sexual acts do or do not take place in a relationship - we're even talking here about a minimal activity in what constitues my relationships

- immoral role-play
i understand your concerns about 'nazi-roleplay', or 'rape' - i'm sure there are emotional and psychological components to such role-play - but not having any direct experience in such fields i'm at a loss to explain them - maybe someone else can do that
still i stand by my point, that just as i do not want my sexual pleasure being called immoral because others cannot understand my enjoyment of pain, so i would not call their enjoyment immoral simply because i only know of the immoral reality they are mimicking - and mimicking is the keyword here: they are not endorsing fascism or rape - they are using it in roleplay with quite different goals - playing prisoner and guard could e.g. be just a 'play' in which to safely inflict sexually pleasurable pain on each other - and i guess 'rape' is the most common roleplay for consensual 'domination'
plus: any kind of uniforms, 'leathers', fetishes are quite favored among sadomasochists - so nazi-roleplay may just be about the uniform, just like some 'normal' people enjoy dressing up in army-fatigues

- Rand disapproved of it, but it is my impression that her followers largely do not
i've had such discussions even here in this forum when it was still SoloHQ - i do agree that homosexuality is no longer such a big issue as sm or promiscuitiy (not to mention pedophilia or polygamy) - however the sexuailties which were 'disapproved of' are always high on the list of immoral sexualitis as there is first-hand writing by 'leading objectivists' to point to
i can only quote Rand on this (not verbatim): 'don't take anything i say on face value - make up your own mind!'

- objective proof
i fully agree with you there - i cannot offer you objective proof that i'm not a sadomasochist as you describe them - as i said already early on in this discussion everyone has to be the juge of their motives, premises, goals - there's however one point in favor of 'non-standard' sexualities: if so many people are against it, discriminating against you on every corner, then you need some strong compulsion or a strong conviction, that what you are doing is right - otherwise it would be easier to simply 'conform' - and compulsion always comes out sooner or later - even if you are forcing only yourself

VSD

Post 137

Thursday, August 6, 2009 - 12:23pm

Vera, maybe there's some confusion here, maybe because English is your second language perhaps? But do you know what pedophilia is?
(Edited by John Armaos on 8/06, 12:23pm)

Post 138

Thursday, August 6, 2009 - 12:52pm

i checked both german and english sources on pedophilia - and not just wiki, but pschyrembel, etc.
there's a certain amount of contradiction, but generally it is meant to describe adults with a sexual interest in prepubescent children - the 'only interest' is somewhat debatable, as well as the 'causing distress' - the 'acting on' is also differentiated between psychological and criminological pedophilia - also all these definitions are based on psychological, legal and criminal evaluations - we are however looking for a moral evaluation which in my opinion includes the aspects i brought up above
does that match your understanding? or do you have an issue with any of the points i brought up?
VSD

Post 139

Thursday, August 6, 2009 - 1:31pm