Tuesday, August 16, 2005

Clashing Views on Sex and Love

As per my earlier post, I believe that sex and love are mutually exclusive phenomena, that in certain instances can and do get united. My contention, however, is that, that union is NOT necessary, and is purely dependent upon the values and motivations of the individuals involved. Thus, I can choose have purely physical, animalistic sex with a person and not have a shred of romantic love for the person -- my doing so is based on my values and motivations. I do not value this person involved, and my motive is purely to get physical, momentary, sexual gratification. This sexual activity is sufficient for me in and of itself. OR, I could choose to fall in love with someone and have sex within the context of our romantic involvement. Here, sex becomes the medium of my expression of love for this person. My value is this person, my motive is to express that abstract nature of love to this person, and my action is sexual intimacy. This is the union of the purely physical (sex) with the purely abstract (love). OR, I could choose to love someone purely and fully, with all my emotional involvement, but not ever have sex with this person -- either due to a physical inabilitiy in either partner, or due to other personal volitional reasons. Thus, here the purely abstract nature of love is merely expressed in its abstract form... using verbal and non-verbal means of communicating that love. I believe love does not NEED the sexual medium inorder to be effectively communicated. I believe that your partner would know and trust that you love them even if you do not have sex with them... that they do not NEED you to have sex with them to prove to them that you love them. Sex is a great and beautiful thing to be enjoyed.. but only upon the full and eager consent of all individuals involved. This is my opinion that clearly clashes with the Randian view of love and sex. According to Rand, having only abstract love is a breach of integrity and would therefore be a vice. In her philosophical paradigm, love would be virtuous only when it is united with the physical expression of sexual intimacy. According to her, sex is to love what action is to thought. She says that we live in our minds and that existence is the attempt to bring that life into physical reality. Sex is the preeminent form of bringing love into physical reality. Clearly, there is a disagreement. And I believe, she is wrong. Based on her own premises of logic - if humans are volitional beings, every act that they perform (given conditions that allow for volition) is an act of deliberate choice. Thus, sex and love should also be subjected to those rules of choice: deliberate engagement in contexts of one's own choice and manner. To fuse sex with love as inseperable would violate the principle that humans can choose to engage in sex without falling in love, or that they can romantically love someone without needing to have sex.


Blogger Semperviva said...

ciao ciao from roma

8/17/2005 02:34:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Roma.. Roma.... ande yago... ande yago.. Roma Roma

8/17/2005 05:22:00 PM  
Blogger innommable said...

I can see how love can be expressed in ways other than sex, but to not express it with sex at all, for some reason that isn't phisiological, just doesn't seem natural...

8/18/2005 03:56:00 AM  
Blogger Ergo Sum said...

I reject the opinion I expressed in this post. My understanding of love has changed appropriately.

5/22/2006 04:43:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home