Tuesday, September 06, 2005

Rand on Sex

So, Rand totally turns my whole conception of sex upside down (regardless of how cool that position might be! ;)) Anyway, so what she says about sex sort of confounds me... and I wonder if she is right. But here it is, for analysis: "Only the man who extols the purity of a love devoid of desire is capable of the depravity of a desire devoid of love." --- Rand WHOA!! SO that is ME! And all my ideas about sex!!! Depraved?!? WHOA! OKay, here's more:- "The subjectivist severs concepts from percepts and holds that sex is a mere sensory reaction, devoid of all intellectual cause. [Objectivism believes that emotions - like love is - is necessarily composed of sensory AND intellectual causes, which I agree to]... he tells men to go ahead and revel in it, to grab whatever animalistic sensations they want without reference to any principles or standards. In this theory, love is an abstract myth with no necessity of real manifestation, and sex is merely a wriggling of meat. ... Man's spirit gives meaning to insentient matter by molding it to serve one's chosen goals. This course of action leads one to the moment when in answer to the highest of one's values, in an admiration not to be expressed by any other form of tribute, one's spirit makes one's body become the tribute, recasting it - as proof, as sanction, as reward - into a single sensation of such intensity of joy that no other sanction of one's existence is necessary," regardless of the context of their union. -- Rand.

15 Comments:

Blogger Semperviva said...

holly and i were just discussing you yeh know- you make for a fascinating topic of discussion LOL

9/07/2005 12:37:00 PM  
Blogger Semperviva said...

maybe u could put rand in your own words? i am somewhat confused by her writing style...

9/07/2005 12:47:00 PM  
Blogger Ergo Sum said...

I was topic of discussion!? :) Thank you, I'm flattered... I guess... depending upon what was discussed about me!

So, WHAT were you two discussing about me?

9/07/2005 01:08:00 PM  
Blogger Ergo Sum said...

Well, yeah it is sometimes difficult understanding Rand especially because she uses regular concepts in such an unusual manner -- but typically in the manner that it ought to be used... like taken "selfishness" for example. Common parlance attributes a negative connotation to that word, however Rand defines it uniquely and perceptively, making "selfishness" the crux of her ethical philosophy.
So, selfishness for Rand is NOTHING like selfishness as you probably conceive it.

Anyway, I digress.
The point about sex, that Rand is making, is that love cannot be extricated from sex.. that those two concepts are mutually inexclusive... that if you seperate the two, then love becomes merely an abstract myth, a story, an idea, having no possibility of real manifestation nor any praxis with reality - it is not even an EMOTION (because Rand defines emotions as the union of the sensory AND the intellectual - which I totally agree)...

And sex without love, according to Rand, is merely the animalistic sensation of the wriggling of meat.

According to Rand, the greatest PROOF, TRIBUTE and REWARD one can give another person of their physical existence is the offering of one's OWN body, insatiated with the intensity and emotion of love for the PHYSICAL EXISTENCE of that other person's body, such that there can be no higher proof for them of their own physical existence.

9/07/2005 01:35:00 PM  
Blogger Semperviva said...

And sex without love, according to Rand, is merely the animalistic sensation of the wriggling of meat.


LOL
i love it-!
its true-
sex without love is a lie--heather nova says that in a song i think she's like
"why do you lie when you fuck me... ?"

really sad but really true

9/08/2005 01:27:00 PM  
Blogger Ergo Sum said...

Well, is sexual desire devoid of love really depraved? If yes, why?

Is romantic love devoid of sexual desire also depraved? If not, why not?

9/08/2005 05:13:00 PM  
Blogger Semperviva said...

i don't really know how i feel on this in relation to rand's line of thought at present.

i am pretty certain that one can if one so chooses engage in nothing other then animalistic sensory sex... ( although on a biological/scientific level this is basically impossible for woman ) however, i see this as merely that... to me it seems less, way less, becuase it is not neccesarily significant in any other way then fleeting sensation... this sensation is NOT bad in itself, it is a good thing, however... without a commitment to the person... all one sees is the piece of flesh/meat and utilizes it AND in doing so one does not see truth for there is inherently way more to the person then flesh... so sex without that love is an action which blinds itslef to the fullness of the reality of human personhood... it seems to me

9/08/2005 05:35:00 PM  
Blogger Semperviva said...

this above meaning

"casual sex"

9/08/2005 05:36:00 PM  
Blogger Ergo Sum said...

"impossible for women"!??!? Explain that to me. It's impossible for women to have animalistic sex?

9/08/2005 08:56:00 PM  
Blogger Semperviva said...

you can read about the biological factors which occur in the women's body when she engages in sex...

which make "casual sex" basically impossible

9/09/2005 09:09:00 AM  
Blogger Semperviva said...

you could look up be honest: your're not that into him either

chapter 2 of the sex segment---


you thought you could have sex like a man

9/09/2005 09:23:00 AM  
Blogger Semperviva said...

LOL: its written for girls, btw, but it could give you some insight into whay happens to a girl when she has sex

9/09/2005 09:24:00 AM  
Blogger innommable said...

Oh Ergo, if you don't have someone else to love, I think it's just better to masturbate. After all, it's sex with someone you love.

:o)

--

9/10/2005 11:34:00 PM  
Blogger Semperviva said...

yes. clearly that's the solution to All your problems in life.

9/11/2005 04:27:00 PM  
Blogger innommable said...

lol, clearly!

9/12/2005 04:27:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home