RoR: Forum

All,

When I composed this poll, I did not list "Getting Laid" as an option. Evidently, the moderator thought it a popular enough goal for Objectivist Club members to include in this poll.

Luke Setzer
SOLO Club Coordinator

Post 1

Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 1:08pm

At work, in a tearing hurry for inspiration, called up SOLOHQ, clicked on the first thing that caught my eye, and dismay! apparently I have VOTED, as the new faciliator for SOLO DC, for what I would like as the theme and emphasis of a local Objectivist Club. Well, lucky us.

Post 2

Monday, August 30, 2004 - 7:53am

All,

Based on the poll results so far, perhaps we need Objectivist Club courses offering "Knowledge Acquisition" about "Getting Laid" via Ross Jeffries and his Speed Seduction workshops!

I admit I feel disappointed that this serious poll has become skewed with an unplanned option. I had hoped to learn more about what people wanted besides pure hedonism.

On the other hand, perhaps the results inform us that we need courses like Dr. Ellen Kenner's audio tapes on romantic partnerships. On that subject, given the expense of these programs, we could all benefit through an online lending library system like Moogul. Has anyone considered using this system?

Luke Setzer

Post 3

Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 1:07am

Luther - I fear the "getting laid" option may have originated with me. When I saw your poll in the queue, I said, "Poor Luther. He doesn't realise most folk join clubs to get laid." Next thing, getting laid is there as an option!! And sure, enough, it's the most popular! However, I think there *is* a lesson in this - clubs are *not* primarily didactic things. You must allow for the fact that folk may want nothing more than to "hang out" with like-minded company, given how rare that is. Note the popularity of the "friendship acquisition" option. (Of course, getting laid would be a bonus!) So have your Covey methods & what-not for those who want that, by all means, but make sure you don't frighten away folk who are just looking for simpatico company to do simpatico things with.

Linz
(Edited by Lindsay Perigo on 9/02, 3:25am)

Post 4

Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 3:25am

What could be more SOL than wanting to simply hang out with like-minded people?

The popularity of the "getting laid" option just emphasises something I have long suspected, that getting laid is the motivation for a very large proportion of all human action!

I wouldn't interpret this example as pure hedonism though. Wanting to get laid with an Objectivist is surely a different proposition than just picking someone up at a bar...?

Post 5

Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 5:27am

Tim Sturm wrote:

What could be more SOL than wanting to simply hang out with like-minded people?

What does SOL mean? I always thought it meant "Shit Outta Luck". I assume here you mean "Sense Of Life".

Luke Setzer

(Edited by Luther Setzer on 8/31, 7:21am)

Post 6

Wednesday, September 1, 2004 - 2:58pm

Getting laid is the motivation for a very large percentage of what I do, and I would have to say that the percentage only seems to be getting larger as time goes by and other things seem less important.

Post 7

Wednesday, September 1, 2004 - 7:37pm

Amen, sister! ;)

J.

Wednesday, September 1, 2004 - 7:17pm

Ash said: Getting laid is the motivation for a very large percentage of what I do, and I would have to say that the percentage only seems to be getting larger as time goes by and other things seem less important.

I say: Where have I been all your life?! ;)

Pianoman

Post 9

Thursday, September 2, 2004 - 2:27am

Ash and Jennifer,

If either of you end up being both single and in the UK at the same time, let me know ;-)

MH

Post 10

Thursday, September 2, 2004 - 2:33am

There should be more people (i.e. women) like you in the world Ash. J

Post 11

Thursday, September 2, 2004 - 4:00am

All,

As I read the responses to this poll, I recalled that the overwhelming number of people in various Objectivist groups remains male. Something about our philosophy draws more men that women. In the search for romantic opportunities, this gives the women a great advantage but leaves the men in the cold. (I lack data to comment on Objectivist gays.)

Perhaps one of the women reading this can compose a poll or article with options for drawing more women to Objectivism. I have one female friend who entices other women to read The Fountainhead by describing it as "a passionate love story". Do we need to employ a stronger appeal to the emotional aspects of Objectivism? I have read that men's brains are "wired" to compartmentalize reason from emotion much more so than women's brains, which have a much tighter integration of neural connections between reasoning and emoting parts. An Objectivist author who has studied these findings in detail could shed some light on this for us.

I would like to see another poll or article posted by someone experienced in various degrees of sexual relationships, from "f*** buddy" to authentic, value-centered, long-term romance. The Objectivist ideal argues in favor of the latter while rejecting the former as unbridled hedonism. At least, that has been how I have read it based on The Romantic Manifesto and other comments from Ayn Rand. The results of this poll suggest that many SOLO members reject this view, but that depends on interpretation of the poll results. In any case, the "ideal" of a life-long monogamous romantic relationship that continously generates value remains elusive for many or perhaps most people from the evidence I have seen.

Luke Setzer

Post 12

Thursday, September 2, 2004 - 4:44am

Luther,

The Objectivist ideal argues in favor of the latter while rejecting the former as unbridled hedonism. At least, that has been how I have read it based on The Romantic Manifesto and other comments from Ayn Rand.

Have you read her Playboy interview?

The results of this poll suggest that many SOLO members reject this view, but that depends on interpretation of the poll results.

Speaking as one of those who voted for the "Getting Laid" option, I don't think its a straightforward alternative like you made out. Casual sex with a total stranger would be wrong, but my interpretation is that sex is Objectively a physical manifestation of emotion arising from shared values (someone else can probably word it a lot better than me). If that's the case then alternatives to long term monogamy are acceptable.

MH

Post 13

Thursday, September 2, 2004 - 5:34am

Matthew Humphreys wrote:

Casual sex with a total stranger would be wrong, but my interpretation is that sex is Objectively a physical manifestation of emotion arising from shared values (someone else can probably word it a lot better than me).

Various gurus of the school of Speed Seduction teach men how to build rapport and a sense of connectedness with the women they seek to seduce. This involves eliciting the target's values and then tying the man to those values in an erotic fashion. Essentially, this amounts to a Don Juan approach of manipulation. I do not know how well all this works as I have read only brief parts of the courses online along with the testimonials. It derives from Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP), a field that has a reputation both for grand results and for some abuse and fraud.

I raise this point because of the issue of delusion of self and others. On the one hand, I think it is great that people can learn to succeed at gaining sexual values. On the other, your comment about "total stranger" sex begs the question: How long do two people need to know each other before they have sex? Howard Roark barely knew Dominique Francon before he "raped" her.

The danger I see comes from the attachment of meaning to sex many people have. Co-dependent people who barely know themselves have all sorts of principles on their Belief Windows that drive them to behave amorously in a futile attempt to fill needs that cannot be filled in that way. For example, a commonly accepted belief is, "Sex equals long-term commitment". If one person has this belief and the other does not, here comes trouble.

So I think some important character traits for persons engaging in sex include

high self-esteem
thorough self-knowledge
honest communication with self and others
a willingness to walk away from sexual opportunities where co-dependence clearly plays a role

It is great to be able to enjoy sex with someone who shares your values. The pitfall of deception of self and others remains the fly in that ointment.

Luke Setzer

Post 14

Thursday, September 2, 2004 - 6:17am

Luke,

I broadly agree with all of your last post, especially the stuff about co-dependence and I'm certainly not in favour of what you term the "Don Juan" approach. Granted Roark and Dominique don't know each other very well, but at least on Roark's side there seems to be a recognition of shared values. My comment about casual sex was rather simplistic - what I ought to have said is that sex with someone you don't share any values at all with would be wrong. So I would say that within a context wherein the attraction is based on shared values, there is no co-dependence and the partners are honest with each other about where the relationship is heading, long term monogamy need not be the only option.

I hope that clarifies my views :-)

Cheers,
MH

Post 15

Thursday, September 2, 2004 - 6:23am

I have one female friend who entices other women to read The Fountainhead by describing it as "a passionate love story". Do we need to employ a stronger appeal to the emotional aspects of Objectivism?

I would consider more emphasis on the emotional (though I'd prefer to say �sense-of-life�) aspects of Objectivism to be tremendously beneficial regardless of whether that would increase its appeal to women specifically.

Post 16

Thursday, September 2, 2004 - 6:30am

Luther said: "f*** buddy"

Ha! Good stuff, man.

BTW, batten down the hatches, Luther! Frances is a'loomin'!

Post 17

Thursday, September 2, 2004 - 1:55pm

Matthew: the first time I read your message I thought it said that if Jennifer and I were ever in the UK at the same time we should give you a call! I was thinking that it would be a lot more convenient for *one* of you to travel - ha.

Post 18

Thursday, September 2, 2004 - 8:30am

MH said:
"what I ought to have said is that sex with someone you don't share any values at all with would be wrong."

I wouldn't consider it "wrong". To satisfy a person's physical or biological needs is heathy at least for the body, and often for the mind as well. I'd always thought that, in general, such needs are particularly strong in men.

As to why there are so few women in objectivist groups, could it be that women in general tend to be more moderate in their opinions? Or they are more concerned with the physical or emotional world, rather than abstract and philosophical ones?

Post 19

Thursday, September 2, 2004 - 3:06pm