Mark Wickens sent this article out to OHomos yesterday.  It’s a brief post by the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) president, Maggie Gallagher, on Ayn Rand’s view of sex.  It’s on the National Review, so gird your loins.

I’ll let you read it on your own, but I want to call out two remarks she made:

Ayn Rand’s “depiction of sex is anything but a “release of biological desire” between sexually marketable equals.”

and

“It has never been quite clear to me why in Rand’s world the most desirable men don’t sleep with other achieving men (even though Rand would be appalled by the idea)”

The first statement seems innocuous and accurate enough on the surface, I guess.  My understanding of Objectivism and the power of my own eyes, though, leads me to be confused about Gallagher’s apparent disagreement with that view.

The phrase “sexually marketable equals” is confusing, but I want to point something out to you that make shock and disturb you.  (I was shocked and disturbed when I found out.)  Please take a seat if you are not already so positioned.

Ready?

Ok. So: Men have penises and women have vaginas.  And by “vagina” I mean that they don’t have penises.  Also, women have squishy parts affixed to their torso called “breasts” and those organs are usually very apparent when you observe them next to males.

These facts and others less apparent lead me to this conclusion: Men and Women are not sexually interchangeable creatures. I know that if you swapped my beau’s brain into a woman’s body I would be quite upset and I would not be inclined to have sex with him.  I feel confident that Ms. Gallagher would agree with me here.

So, Ayn Rand was unmistakably clear about the roles of men and women in sex and, consonant with the physical reality that is the difference between men and women, those roles are different but compatible.  Ms. Gallagher’s summary of those roles is reasonably good for a non-Objectivist, I think.

I also think that in this Post Brown vs. The Board of Education world, it is easy to understand why she would leap to the conclusion that Rand’s view of men and women are not “equal” given the fact that Ayn Rand insists on pointing out that they are different from one another.

But if you ask me whether or not I like men or women more, sexually, I will consistently tell you that I like men.  Does that not state clearly that I think men are more valuable than women in a sexual context? I sure hope it does. I don’t think it would help anyone to be confused on that point.  Maggie is a straight woman, so she must hold similar values.

Holding those values and understanding the source of those values is not a claim to any objective superiority, though.  Rand didn’t think women were sexually inferior to men.  She thought they were sexually compatible with (straight) men by virtue of their physical nature as women.

So, the underlying premise that the hateful, mistaken, and rude Ms. Gallagher is operating under is that of an inapt sexual egalitarianism.

That leads me to her second comment.

When I first discovered Ayn Rand’s work, I was also confused about why the men in her books didn’t have sex with other men because they were so amazing and handsome and strong and smart and cool and everything good.

Well, the reason is simple: they’re men.

Dagny Taggart in Atlas Shrugged is NOT “just, you know, a pretty competent railroad executive — for a woman.” The novel is eleventy million pages of examples of how Dagny Taggart is the most competent railroad executive in existence.  There is no railroad executive in the book better than her.  Sure, she has equals as a businessperson in other industries, but when it comes to running a railroad there is not a man alive in Atlas Shrugged who could hold a candle to her.

Also, Dagny Taggart is smart.  She’s smarter and more mentally capable than a good number of the men in the book.  I’d say the only man in the book who could be argued to be smarter than she is is John Galt, actually.  She seems clearly on par with D’Anconia and Rearden in the brains department.

Ayn Rand took care to show us Dagny in a number of contexts.  She talks to scientists. She talks to presidents. She works with other business executives.  She talks to composers.  She flies a damn plane into the mountains by herself!  She does all kinds of things that show that Dagny Taggart is as good, if not better, than most of the men you see in the novel.

But she is a woman.  And there is only one context in which her being a woman has any direct importance: sex.

Rand’s view of men and women in sex is perhaps not readily apparent to the modern eye.  If you hold that men and women are inherently equal, they’re also infinitely interchangeable in every single way, then you certainly will not be able to comprehend why Rand didn’t have Rearden and D’Anconia in a sweaty, rough-and-tumble embrace, each struggling to overpower the other by taking him to ever higher levels of pleasure until one of them submits and loses himself completely to the erotic prowess of his partner and becomes the quivering, panting instrument of his satisfaction– even though I TOTALLY wanted that to happen, like, several times.

That’s where the contradiction in Gallagher’s view is.  On one hand, she scorns Rand for pointing out that men and women are different biologically and that means they hold different sexual values because, in Gallagher’s eyes, that means that men are superior to women and we ought to see men and women as undifferentiated equals in sex as well as other contexts.  But on the other hand she argues that men and women are not interchangeable — which is what we would necessarily conclude if we held that men and women were undifferentiated equals — when it comes to sex. Why? Because, according to Gallagher, they’re different biologically and that should mean they hold different values sexually and that’s why men should only marry women.

The problem with Gallagher’s view — and that of so many others today — is that there is some sort of inability to differentiate between the relevant facts in particular contexts.  When it comes to sex, the difference between men and women are really, really important.  Elsewhere, those differences are not important at all even if they do affect how the individual behaves within those contexts. But Gallagher doesn’t seem to know why and rejects Rand’s explanation out of hand because it doesn’t jive with her view of men and woman in other contexts, like business.

Gallagher is also rabidly, ignorantly, hatefully, and stupidly opposed to gay marriage.  Why?  Because contrary to her views on “equality in sexual marketing” (Seriously, what does that even mean?) she contends that marriage should only be between a man and a woman.

There’s an ironic inversion there.  When it comes to sex, Gallagher seems to want to say that men and women are equals, but when it comes to politics, marriage as seen by the government, she vehemently holds that men and women are not equals.

Note: Gallagher is certainly aware of the physical differences between men and women, but she refuses to draw any conclusions about how those concrete differences might affect behavior and sexual values.  So, I’m forced to say that she sees men and women as equals but since she offers no indication of what it means in reality to be “equal” it remains a bland, meaningless concept in her use of the term. If she did offer up any such indications, it would draw her closer toward Rand’s view of men and women in sex.  My use of the term “equal” in the second part of the above statement refers to civil rights and recognition by the government in defense of their individual rights.

If men and women were equal in the eyes of the government — where the concrete difference between their sexes are irrelevant — then they would be able to marry either other men or other women as they may so choose.

That’s the beauty of Rand’s view.  Ayn Rand held that men and women are equals in every way — in sex they are different, but complementary elements to one another in very particular ways, but still “equal” in the metaphysical sense of the term. Therefore, Rand also held that they should be equals in the eyes of the law, each having the same rights and are entitled to the same level of defense from the government.  She held that for both gay and straight people as well.

Maggie Gallagher, unfortunately, is confused and, as a result, sexist.

Things have been wicked busy for me lately.  I’ve got this new fella thing going on and my job has presented me with a huge new opportunity that requires that I move nearly 900 miles away. Never mind the fact that my job even as it stands today has been superbizzy of late.  Everything is just piling up like crazy!

So, what’s happened so far?

Well, this past week, I was fortunate to be able to spend a little time in Nashville.  I saw some of the city and I looked at several apartment complexes.  I am very happy to say that I found a very nice apartment complex in a good neighborhood, close to work, and well within my price range.  It has two bedrooms and two bathrooms.  If I should be possessed by the devil and decide I want to start doing my own laundry, there are washer and dryer hook ups.  The kitchen is really nice and even has a dishwasher and a garbage disposal and lots and lots of counter space.  The closets are HUGE.  (I’m pretty sure if the closets had windows they would try to call them studio apartments here in NYC.)

I’m pretty stoked about it.

Also, whilst in Nashville, the new fella (Any suggestions about a sobriquet for this one?) was in the area and we were able to spend the weekend together.  It was so much fun.  We had an ossum time.

But it also underscored for me how much I’m missing out by virtue of the simple fact that we live 3,000 miles apart.  Don’t get me wrong, I’m not second guessing the relationship itself.  It’s just that I spend so much of my time with him simply on the phone or looking at a jumpy webcam view of him.  When we’re together in person, I feel shocked into silence over just seeing him and getting to spend time joking around, talking about art or philosophy or movies or music or television.  I feel like I didn’t say everything I want to say. I didn’t get to show him all the things I wanted to show him.  As soon as I kissed him goodbye at his gate in the airport I wanted to call him to tell him about things I was seeing and thinking.

It “sucks” that he reads this blog sometimes (and I showed him how to use Google Reader this weekend, so now he’s following me) and I can’t just tell you ALL the crazy stuff I think about him — like how he vaguely resembles a chimpanzee sometimes when he smiles real big. (Don’t tell him I said that.)  And about how much I love that he tolerates me singing in the car — I am nearly tone deaf — along with Top 40’s radio hits — as if I didn’t notice how many times this weekend he pointed out how obnoxious those songs are.  And about how he tested me and noticed exactly how bad I am at recognizing faces, which is an embarrassing level of bad.

But whatevs.  He’s  sweetie and we have a stupid amount of fun together.

His brain amazes me.  In one moment we’re talking about unicorns and Britney Spears and then next moment we’re talking about something called the Principle of Explosion and riddles about coins.  He listens to me rave on about how a painting in a restaurant is both an impressive display for a young artist and a disgusting conjunction of “Hopperesque use of lighting,” “Cezannesque perspective,” and “Lichtensteinian pop-art influences.”  AND he seems to be impressed with that identification if nothing else.

He’s coming to help me move in a couple of weeks.  I’m excited about that.  I’m excited about moving. I’m excited about seeing him.  I’m excited about moving and him being with me to help out.  I’m just excited.

I’m excited about the opportunity my job is presenting me right now.  Things are in a state of transition and it could fall out in any number of directions.  I’m pretty sure I know how it will go, but there’s a lot of work to be done to make sure that’s the case.  And on top of that, there’s a lot of work to make sure I achieve what I intend to achieve while I’m in Nashville.  It’s going to be tough. Really tough.  But I’m looking forward to it because I am pretty sure I will be granted a fairly significant amount of latitude to make things happen.  And if they do happen, I have a lot to gain.

I’m sorry for all the vague language here, but I can’t disclose much. I can’t disclose because I have clients who follow me and I have co-workers who follow me.  So, suffice it to say that I am optimistic about the way things are going to play out, but I also know that it’s not an easy row to plow.  (I’m so gonna rock this.)

Recently, a couple of people have mentioned my lack of presence on the internets of late.

First of all, part of the problem is that Facebook won’t synch up with my Twitter account.  I don’t know why. Both SmartTwitter and the regular Twitter app have failed.  So, when I tweet things, it doesn’t show up in my Facebook.  And for a number of my fans that diminishes my web presence.  I’m super annoyed by it, but I don’t know how to fix that.  Sooooo…

Anywhoodles, as I mentioned, the reason I haven’t been tweeting and blogging is because I am presently preoccupied by two TWO kind of big things.

I can’t talk about one of them.  I promise I will tell you about it in about a week.

The second thing is “complicated.”  I hate that relationship status and I told him so.  People who put “It’s complicated” as their status message have drama.  I don’t have drama.  But it’s kind of complicated.  I mean, he lives on the opposite side of the country.

I’ve never attempted the long-distance thing before.  In fact, I’ve been really opposed to them.

The problems with long-distance relationships are obvious. Most interactions take place online or on the phone.  You just can’t see a whole person through that kind of filter. Plus plus plus, there is the complete lack of smooches.

But if there can be anything good said about a long-distance relationship, it’s that you can live most of your life without interruption.  That sounds terrible.  It sounds insensitive. But, really, it is easier to say, “I can’t talk on the phone tonight because I’m out at such-and-such,” when you live 3,000 miles away versus down the street when the decision is between being in person over simply on the phone. I’m not sure why, but it’s true.

Even so, I’d rather be on the phone.

You’ve heard about some of the people I’ve dated.  The Good Doctor, Mr. Bookworm.  But not many.  I’m not a very PDA kind of guy.  I don’t often let on when I’m involved with someone.  Especially not this early on.

It’s not really avoidable, though.  We live our lives online.  The better part of this dating “thing” is online.  And it’s public.  There’s the strange attraction and the bizarre number of silly, exciting coincidences.  (Shocking to me, not many people share my deep-seated revulsion for Philip Seymore Hoffman. But that’s not the only thing.) I’d be lying if I said I weren’t worried about it.  The lack of frequent, in-person interactions make me anxious. But what can you do?

This is an advantage of modern life, right?

Whatever the case, I have a pretty hard-core crush on him.  It’s a fact of reality, of life.

In just over a week, I’m going to get to see him again and I’m superduper excited about it!  Not only do I get to spend some quality time with him, it’s related to item 1 above,which is super fun and exciting.  So, I’m totally stoked about all this on pretty much all levels.

So, that’s one thing that is occupying pretty much all of my attention right now.  And I can’t think of anything to write or say that isn’t related to him or to that other thing.  *sigh*  That’s life.

Hopefully, things will be back to some semblance of normality (Take THAT, Warren G. Harding!) in a month or two.  (Yeah, even though the secret will be out in roughly a week, life won’t be back into a basic structure for me for over a month now.)

I haven’t been blogging for a little while because I have a lot on my plate.  There’s just a lot going on for me right now both professionally and personally.  The only things I’m thinking about are things related either to my job in a very specific way or to my love life in a very specific way.  If I thought my blog could remain unseen by involved parties, then I would likely blog on those things if only to sort things out for myself.

The problem is that plenty of people from work and my boudoir do read this blog.  So, I can’t say too much.

Anyway, that’s why I haven’t been blogging.  I can’t say anything.

I was chatting with a friend this morning about love and romance. He was a little bummed out because he’d spent an evening with some friends.  The friends were two couples and the discussion turned to the fact that my friend is single. Apparently, it was implied that his being single is his own fault. Putting aside my friend’s particular situation, I find this implication to be all too common in our society with regard to romance. (I suspect, thanks to my diet of rom-com movies, that women experience it more than men.)

The idea is that being single is a bad thing and that if one is single it is some sort of personal failing on that person’s fault. Maybe they’re fat or mean or “too picky” or whatever. But whatever it is, it’s their own fault and they should do something involving a treadmill and Xanax to fix it.

I think this is stupid. There is nothing wrong with being single. Furthermore, simply because one is single does not mean that someone is doing something wrong in their efforts to find love.

I’ve long said that if one simply wants a relationship for the sake of having a relationship, then all one needs to do is lower one’s standards. But if you want to be happy and have a good relationship, then there is little you can do to speed things along beyond knowing what your values are and acting accordingly.

For example, if you’re a Christian and you want to find someone, you should attend church. Lots of Christian couples meet in church. If you’re an outdoorsy-type person, you could join hiking or camping clubs. If you’re an avid runner or cyclist, then you could join a group like that. Do things you enjoy while trying to come into contact with as many other people who share the same values and interests that you have. Of course, cycling is generally not ranked as highly in one’s hierarchy of values as religion or politics. You just have to figure out how your values balance out and set your expectations accordingly.

But even if you approach finding a mate in the right way, there isn’t any guarantee that you’ll find them.

Furthermore, I don’t generally regard my past relationships as failures. I suppose if you believe you were not honest or that you behaved in a way that was unjust or wrong and it led to the end of your relationship, you might consider that a “failure.” But just because a relationship doesn’t work doesn’t mean it “failed.”

My objection here is a reference to the fact that success and failure are being determined by outcomes where the successful outcome is granted in spite of clear evidence in support of it, but failure is given a discrete cut-off. Basically, you succeed until you fail, which means “success” means very little while “failure” is pretty nearly a default judgment in nearly all cases except where your partner or you die.

Putting this in concrete terms, if we’re strict and consistent with our use of “success” and “failure,” if you go on a date with someone who agrees to a second date, then you have a successful relationship. YAY, you! But if they don’t agree to a third, then you are a big, fat, mean failure. BOOOOO!

Similarly, if you spend three wonderful months with someone, you have a successful relationship. But if you take stock of the relationship and decide that even though you quite enjoy yourself on a number of levels, you want something more or different in a partner, so you break up, you’re a failure.

Also, even if you get married and stay married, you may not be happy with it. I’m sure there are lots of people who are married who don’t like it, and to describe them as “successul” in romance would be silly and wrong.

I’ve had a number of relationships, most of which were relatively brief, and I enjoyed them all for various reasons. I kept those reasons in the forefront of my mind while in the relationship and the relationships brought me a certain amount of joy and happiness. When those relationships ended, it wasn’t without some amount of sadness, but I had turned my focus to the larger goals I have for my romantic life and concluded that they could not satisfy those goals/values. I had to choose between having this person in my life or continuing to search, perhaps in vain, for the person who would help me meet those goals.

These are difficult conclusions to reach. But it isn’t a “failure” to enjoy the relationship for everything it is and to end it for what it isn’t in light of your hierarchy of values in romance. I would say that enjoying the relationship for what it is is the definition of success.

I am mindful, however, that using “success” and “failure” in the common way is useful. I probably wouldn’t recommend that we abandon that mode of reference to relationships. But I strongly caution against using that usage to reflect some sort of moral evaluation of one’s character in romance.

Note: This post was started on February 1st and published at a later date.

I was talking to a friend today who has recently had a difficult time in romance.  All of this is from her perspective, of course, but she was dating this fellow about whom she was very hopeful.  He courted her vigorously and was quite the gentleman.  Suddenly, one day at brunch (BRUNCH!) he left his manners at home and said some things in front of their mutual that made it clear that his intentions were not pure.  He did some other things which made it undeniably clear that he is a blackguard.

And she was hurt.  She was sad and angry.  She felt intense disappointment and she questioned herself.

A while back, a dear friend of mine gave me some advice about emotions which I like very much.  She said that when you have an emotion, especially with it’s a particularly strong emotion, you need to feel that emotion in all the fullness that you can muster.  Although it is often appropriate to push it aside for a moment until you can get some time by yourself to deal with it, you need to find a time and place to welcome that emotional experience.  Revel in it.  Wallow in it.  Celebrate the emotional experience.  Name it for what it is and acknowledge that the experience of that emotion is part of who you are.  And when you’re done with it, you pack it away in its special place in your heart and soul and move on with your life.

Emotionally, psychologically, it’s a “meta-emotional” experience. “Oh! Anger.  Hello! Yes, I am angry!!  I AM VERY ANGRY!  RARR!! Thank you.”

That sounds like a lot of huggy-touchy-feely, new-agey mumbo-jumbo, but there is a truth to that.

Emotions are how your subconscious sums up a situation.  Whether or not that summation is accurate, rational, or true is not the point at that moment.  It is simply a fact that that emotion is a reflection in some way of who you are on the inside.  You might say you believe one thing, but your emotional response will reveal the truth.

And it might not be anybody’s business, but it’s at least your business to know this: you will get no where if you deny that fact.  If you try to repress your emotions and pretend that you don’t feel what you really do feel, you will never change how you feel about a particular thing.

In her case, she felt angry, sad, and disappointed.  She also, I think, felt a little guilty.  And the first thing I said was that she should just acknowledge that she feels that way.  Acknowledge it to her conscious mind and decline to feel any shame about it.  This is simply who she is and who she is is a person who is seeking out happiness.

I have to say, to my friend’s credit, she behaved admirably in this situation.  In spite of her disappointment and anger, she did not once back off of her expectation to be treated with honesty and respect.  And this guy treated her poorly.  He was dishonest with her, but she was not dishonest with him nor with herself.

The guilt she may have felt, as she explained it to me, came from the question about why she didn’t see him for who he really is.  But that’s a demand of omniscience, which cannot be completely addressed while she’s feeling guilty about not being omniscient.  But it should be stated: no one is omniscient and it is an utterly unreasonable expectation to have for yourself that you might never be tricked or let down by other people.

BUT! If you feel guilt in the presence of an irrational demand like that of omniscience, you have to acknowledge that you do feel the guilt of this particular circumstance before you can address the fact that you’ve accepted a bad idea.

Her indignation and disappointment were righteous and true.  And that makes it all the more important to acknowledge the fact that they are justified.  When you’re right, you need to pick out the fact that you’re right and hold to it.

She did nothing wrong in being hopeful about a romance with a man who courted her with such apparent earnestness and fervor.  She valued rightly being treated as a person of value in his life.  She was being rational in her appreciation of who he portrayed himself to be.  And when he betrayed that image, she was equally consistent and clear.  She kicked him out of the cab he tried to share with her and she refused to entertain further advances.

So, there are two parts to what she has done right so far: she did have the right ideas about her expectations in a relationship.  She expected honesty and he wasn’t honest.  And she acted properly according to those expectations.

She wasn’t one of these girls who says she’s looking for Prince Charming but goes to bed with every playboy who comes along.  She was rationally cautious about pursuing the relationship.  When she entered it, no matter how brief or nascent, she was honest at each step.  And she had the corresponding emotions which went along with each step of the romance.  She was hopeful, excited, and giddy with the prospect.  She enjoyed it.

The point here is that contrary to mainstream philosophy which holds that emotions are inherently irrational, the truth is that emotions are not reason.  Emotions just tell you who you are and you need to know who you are in order to be happy and become a better, happier person.  Just because you get angry about something doesn’t mean you aren’t completely, rationally justified in getting angry.  Just because you’re sad that someone disappointed you doesn’t mean you are utterly sane and reasonable for being sad.

But you do have to take those emotions and recognize them for what they are.  Experience them completely and use them to figure out who you are and what you really think about things.  What you feel is a function of what you think. You can change what you think, but what you feel at this moment is just a fact of life.  So, feel it, recognized it, and acknowledge the emotion as who you are.  And deal with what you THINK later.

I haven’t talked about my love life recently and I’m sure you all are just dying for an update especially because contrary to what has been the norm over the past two years, I do actually have some updates.

First, the sad story.

A few months ago, I met a handsome gentleman (If you follow me on Twitter of Facebook, you’ll recognize that epithet.) and we had several, very nice dates. It was a bit uneven, though.  I was always the one to initiate our dates and, more often than not, I was the one who paid.

In my experience, when two men of similar socio-economic status and economic stability date, significant effort is made by both parties to keep expenditures between the parties even. Disparate spending can be a source of significant unrest in a new relationship particularly between males who may harbor notions about the necessity of demonstrating financial virility during courtship.  Put more simply: if one person always pays, that person may become resentful and feel like he’s being milked and the other may feel insecure or that his masculinity is challenged.

I was mostly annoyed by the apparent lack of basic manners, but dismissed those feelings as petulance (Yes, I can be petulant.) and assumed that there was a good chance that our financial situations were not as even as I had assumed.

But the lack of any reciprocity in terms of initiating contact was the biggest beef I had.  Of course, I never told him this directly.

I did one time tell him about a dream I had that I enjoyed in which he asked me on a date and was thrilled to accept.  (I really did have such a dream.) And he just laughed about it, but didn’t do actually ask me out.

In fairness to him, I should acknowledge that he always came to me. I never went to his house or to New Jersey, where he lives, or anything like that.  So, he wasn’t utterly passive in the relationship.

Alas, I met someone else and he sort of fell out of the forefront of my thoughts.

However, I didn’t forget him.  I texted him.  I called him.  But he never responded!  I wanted to at least have a conversation in which I thank him for his company and let him know that I have no further intentions toward courting him.  But after three, admittedly half-hearted, attempts to reach him, I am ashamed to say that I resorted to sending him an email.

Hello!

I hope this note finds you well, although I do regret saying this in email as I prefer to have these conversations in person or, at worst, over the phone. It’s just that we haven’t been able to connect on the phone and I wouldn’t think of asking you to come all the way to the city for this.

To the point: I wanted to thank you for your time and company.  I enjoyed myself immensely and I hope you did as well.  Unfortunately, I believe you and I are now moving in different directions in life and I’d like to unburden you and myself from any illusions about it.  I know we never had any relationship conversations, but I very much dislike when people simply disappear rather than making clear their intentions.

Perhaps in the future we’ll find ourselves on parallel paths again.

Thank you again and best wishes!

I very much dislike hearing about anyone sending relationship-changing communications via email.  This was, in fact, the first time I’ve ever done it.  In the past, I’ve always had these conversations in person.  Once or twice I’ve had them over the phone, but those were situations in which the geographic distance between me and my audience was an hour or more by car AND the relationship had not reached a level of any significance.  Note that qualifications, because I have driven over an hour before to break up with someone in person because it was a significant relationship and that’s how strongly I feel about this.

I am aghast at people who break things off via text message.  As mentioned, I loathe voicemail, so I don’t even think of leaving good news there.

On the other side of this, I am pretty sure he felt the same way about things and we were already on the same page, but I like to make things clear.

In other, semi-unrelated news, I met someone else who is a lot more fun!

So far, it’s going well.  I’m enjoying his company and he mine.  We’re both kind of goofy and quirky in our ways.  He’s not an Objectivist, but he seems to be honestly interested in it, if only in a very superficial way.  He makes me smile and laugh and he’s cute as a bug’s ear. I don’t have a lot more to say about him right now except that I do hope the good times keep rolling.

Since my new iPod has gotten me addicted to podcasts and Dr. Peikoff is on vacation for a couple of weeks, presumably dancing naked around a bonfire in a forest somewhere, I’ve been going back and listening to some of his early episodes.  Today, I listened to a couple of them and in one, I forget which, he addresses some questions about sex.

By the way, I don’t know if I’ve mentioned it here, but I believe people just like to hear this man talk about sex (and he likes talking about it, too) because not only are people continually asking him questions to try to get him to either tell them it’s OK to go hire a prostitute or to talk about sex toys and pornography, he continually looks for ways to work those topics into his answers even if the question isn’t very related. This makes me giggle.

Anywhoodles, he was responding to a young man’s questions about sex and he made a very important point that I’d like to highlight.  I’ll paraphrase his remarks to the best of my understanding.

Sex does not require love.  Romantic love is when someone has become an irreplaceable value in your life, when absolutely no one else can bring the values and happiness they bring to you.  Sex, however, is merely an expression of appreciation for deeply held values.  So, while sex is, of course, requisite in love, love is not requisite for sex.  What is required for sex is that one recognize some deeply held values in one’s partner and value him or her accordingly.

With this formulation, promiscuous or casual sex is that which one has sex with those in whom one has not seen or does not see those values.  This is also why it is perfectly moral to have sex with someone you’re dating, your boyfriend or girlfriend, even though you’re not prepared to say that you love them.

Maybe all that was obvious but for some reason it struck me as if it were the first time I’d heard it.

“Sacrifice” is the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser one or of a nonvalue.

– Ayn Rand in “The Ethics of Emergencies,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 44.

A few years ago, a friend of mine who has one of the absolute best romantic relationships I’ve ever had the great fortune to observe was bemoaning the “sacrifice” of not being able to go out on the town when she wants because she has a commitment to her husband which comes first.  I tried to explain to her that this is not a sacrifice because her husband and her commitment to him are simply more important than her desire to go out on the town.  She argued the point and I let it fall by the wayside with a smile as I observed the two of them together. They are two of the best matched people I’ve ever seen and when they’re together it warms my heart to know that such love and intimacy are things humans are capable of producing together.

Via Randex: Love, Sacrifice and the Prisoner’s Dilemma

Forgetting the writer/editor’s dislike for the serial comma, this author seems to implicitly know Ayn Rand’s definition of sacrifice but choose to ignore it in order to use it as the springboard for her article.

Sacrifice does involves [sic] surrender of something important or desirable – for the sake of something considered as having a higher or more pressing claim“¹. If the higher claim is a dominating partner’s selfish gratification, Rand was right. That kind of sacrifice gives someone power over you. But what if the more pressing claim is your partner’s wellbeing – and you know they endorse the same deep value? Then you have power with someone. I think of it as the Prisoner’s Dilemma of sacrifice.

It amazes me that Dr. Young is able to be so obtuse here.  She presents a definition, but seems to emphasize that it is in contrast to Rand’s meaning.  But Rand provided a definition in part so that people might not mistake her meaning, just as she did for the term “selfish.”  And Rand’s definition does not support Dr. Young’s conclusions about Rand’s opinion of sacrifice.

This is so plainly idiotic you might wonder why I’m bothering to blog about it.  Well, it’s more important for me to inform my readers than it is to let this sort of stupidity go un-addressed.  Call me selfish.

Arguing AGAINST Rand’s definition of sacrifice, Dr. Young says that in romantic relationships one should:

Recognize the gamer versus mature giver.

Take the long view.

Work on your undeveloped and broken parts.

Know when enough is enough.

Find examples.

Restated in terms Rand might have approved of:

1. Evaluate everything and avoid being exploited; seek romantic relationships where you exchange value for value even in emotional currency.
2. Consider every decision within the context of who you are and your entire life.
3. “To say ‘I love you’ one must know first how to say the ‘I.’” Or “Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living.” Dr. Young goes into emotionalism here, but the gist of her remark seems to be that one must introspect and build an inviolate sense of justice, rationality, and integrity when expressing love.
4. Be honest with your partner.  Do not evade reality with your partner.
5. Recognize that your concepts of romance are formed from your abstractions from concretes.

I lack Ms. Rand’s ability for pithy, succinct ripostes, but you get my point here.  Dr. Young’s use of the word sacrifice is not in line with what Rand meant and as such her article fails to support her apparent criticism.

Ayn Rand’s form of egoism is explicitly not a claim that one remain concerned about one’s own immediate self-interest at all times.  No matter what Dr. Young says, this is simply not the case and she fails to support the argument even though she’s pulled a kitschy quotable of Rand’s out of context.

The part that amazes me is this: “But what if the more pressing claim is your partner’s wellbeing – and you know they endorse the same deep value?”  That is exactly what Rand meant by proper, rational, romantic love.  You know I dislike quoting Rand so much, but it bears it here:

Romantic love [..] is his response to his own highest values in the person of another—an integrated response of mind and body, of love and sexual desire.

“Of Living Death,” The Objectivist, Oct. 1968, 6.

Consider also:

Love, friendship, respect, admiration are the emotional response of one man to the virtues of another, the spiritual payment given in exchange for the personal, selfish pleasure which one man derives from the virtues of another man’s character.

“The Objectivist Ethics,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 31.

That Dr. Young seems to believe that Ayn Rand is talking about a relationship with an abusive, domineering, exploiting brute makes me think that Dr. Young simply wanted to garner some attention by invoking Rand in her otherwise banal post about relationships.  To that end, it seems notable to provide a citation for her quotation.  It comes from The Fountainhead where the villain, Ellsworth Toohey, is confessing his desire to be the abusive, domineering, exploiting spiritual tuning fork of humanity. Dr. Young advises to take the long view of things, it’s a wonder she was able to so easily ignore the context of her own citation.

update: minor edits

Last night I had my first official date with that nice fella I met from Match.com.  He’s cute and successful, smart, ambitious, and has a generally nice personality.  There’s a lot to like about him.

But our date last night was incredibly awkward.

First of all, he wouldn’t let me pay for dinner even though I specifically stated that I wanted to take him to my favorite restaurant, Jane.  He absolutely insisted on paying for himself.  It was just strange how vehemently he insisted that he “doesn’t let people pay for him.”  I inquired about gifts and he said he doesn’t even accept gifts well — a remark I took to be a prevarication and the first sign that he just wasn’t that in to me.

As we strolled and chatted he made other remarks like that, remarks about how he doesn’t believe he can have a relationship and he doesn’t “do” courtship and all sorts of other things.  The bottom line was that he was being extremely defensive. “Obstructive” might be a better word.

I’m not sure what brought it on, though, because there wasn’t any particular moment when I sensed a shift in his regard or disposition.  You know, like if I had let out a huge fart at the table or something like that.  He did say that he’s inexperienced in the realm of dating, though, so I wonder if his nervousness or anxiety about that fact manifested itself in that behavior.

Of course, it’s equally possible that he just figured out that he doesn’t find me attractive.

OR I could take him at his word and just conclude that dude is bat-shit insane when it comes to romance.

Even so, I did find him charming and I think there are a lot of things to like about him when he’s not putting up all these silly barriers to getting to know him.  So, I left the door open for him to ask me out the next time if he’s interested in a second date.  I have absolutely no expectation that he will, though.

Most unfortunate.