All of Ayn Rand's philosophy is about the Atlas and not the Shrug.

Monogamy is not natural, not even serially. The Bonobos have it right. It is the notion of property rights that set all those trades in motion. The females of whom you speak are opportunistic, using males for their benefit, trading sexual favors for support, especially if children issue forth. Husbands trade their support for sexual exclusivity and unlimited access, though fidelity on their part is iffy.

Social structures and morals evolved to favor DNA survival. With Nature being so ingenious, you'd think more people would spend more effort on making love, not war. Or at least on keeping a peaceful world for their offspring to thrive in. Sheesh.

The above posting by Puzzlelady should have indicated that it is from a Martian anthropologist's report on human mating practices.

“Dating” in American culture is usually about sizing up a potential mate, driven by the genetic imperative to replicate. All other considerations are just window-dressing. In ancient cultures this matter of mating was taken much more seriously, with fathers selling their most desirable daughters to the most advantageous suitor. In a perverse form of natural selection, those cultures practiced a eugenics of power and wealth. The females had little choice, and to this day in some societies are at risk of punishment, even unto death, for disobeying. Slave markets likewise survive to this day.

Even in 21st century America there are still family and religious traditions that constrain mating rituals. Ayn Rand envisioned a marvelous romanticism of free choice, yet even she declared herself to be a man worshipper and did not consider females capable of being President because it would put a woman above a man. Is that a truly objective view? That men are superior to women? That men have a greater capacity for Reason or for being heroes? The DNA doesn’t give a damn, it just wants to get sperm and ovum together. Males are always happy to contribute, sometimes even forcibly; females have a built-in diagnostic program for selecting a donor which usually takes the form of thinking she is in love.

There are thousands of criteria by which females find males acceptable, from physical prowess to productive ambition, from scent to sense, from shared values to shared enemies, from loyalty and respect to longevity and family acceptance. These preferences, or memes, are spread through every cultural medium, books and magazines, films and soap operas, celebrity gossip and religious conditioning, and the fossils of attitudes and tradition. Women in America are fantastically fortunate to need no permission to “date”, a euphemism for audition to seduce.

A hundred thousand years of clans ruled by alphas, and just a few decades for American women to have a will of their own. And now they can even advise each other on criteria for suitable mate selection. How quaint these humans are!

Beautifully said, D_E_, an admirable integration of mind and heart. Did you have any children? Or is an ideal partnership enough?

I voted you back up, CG. Your answer seems very honest to me. Thanks.

Not at all. My feelings about sex were formed when I read Atlas and Fountainhead as a young teenager.

"I wonder what what the male Objectivists on this site would say, being completely honest."
I'm fascinated by the notion of it but never tried it. Most of the times I've been around sex workers I've found it boring, contrary to my theoretical fascination with it. The red light district of The Hague just exudes boredom. Other times I got weireded out or maybe chickened out b/c of the taboo. I'm not sure whether I was "above that sort of thing" or just chicken.

It became an academic issue for me ten years ago, but I'm still interested in the theory of it. I make crass jokes here about sex as the only "service" that can be used as a benchmark of value throughout time because it hasn't been affected much by industry and agriculture, but I really wonder if that may be true.

"show me who a person sleeps with, and I will tell you what that person thinks of himself"
What does it say if he sleeps with someone that he does not know anything about beyond the fact that she's very pretty and willing to sleep with him for money? [Not a rhetorical question; I really don't know.]

Your question leads me to think that your feelings about sex have been formed by religion, or at least a religion-based society. And it occurs to me that we're probably thinking of sex from different angles.

My answer comes from a (paraphrased) line in the show Lie to Me: "All men pay for sex. But at least the hooker has the decency to tell you the price up front."

Yes but if someone is having trouble finding the right partner they may feel the need to have a release of sorts. That way they don't risk getting involved in the wrong relationship. Would a prostitute be a producer? At least they aren't mooching.

Rich, I think that sex can range from the most horrible thing on earth (rape), to the most wonderful thing on earth. I agree that sex is natural and a stress reliever, but wouldn't an Objectivist reach for more? Haven't you?

Paraphrasing: "show me who a person sleeps with, and I will tell you what that person thinks of himself".
Rand expressed that one should reach for the best within himself, and reach for the highest person to share sex and himself with. How can that equate with paid for with a stranger sex?

I was with her until #5. Seeking to alter someone else's behavior (as one might with a child) is always a losing proposition. If you succeed, you end up with someone who can be manipulated, or is a very good actor. If you fail, then you have to turn your mini-strike into a mega-strike, and then into an ultimatum, and then into a breakup. Sounds kind of like counting (again, with a child). The antagonist learns that s/he can get to "3" before anything bad happens.

Depends. In the majority of the US it's illegal, which drives it underground where it gets mixed up with drugs and disease. I can see how you might think it goes against Objectivism.

But where it's legal in the US (certain counties in NV), how is it not Objectivist? The customer and working girl trade value (cash) for value (sex, although time is the value being measured). Both parties are transparent about the transaction and what valuable things are being traded.

Personally I think the modern dating scene is what Objectivists should reject. As seen in a meme a few years ago, a grade-schooler's description of a first date: "Where two people go to dinner and tell a bunch of lies so that the other person will go on a second date with them."

P.S. Dang auto correct... Makes me look like I can't tpye.

Agreed

Congratulations on your lottery win.
I won also , 37 yrs out of 57 and they just get better every day.
Regarding most people not having any concept of what a commitment marriage is until they've experienced it.
One Reason would be lack of role models( family disintegration) who properly treat their spouse and how they handle adversity .
Two , like anything you create of value you must put your full attention (mind) and abilities to achieve the outcome you desire. The beauty of it is you have your whole life to perfect the product.
Three , It's not all about self , it's a partnership.
Four , it's reasoning , objectivity , negotiation , compromise , empathy , forgiveness , responsibility , equality , values , respect , honesty , trust , and communication . Many things that are becoming rare in this society and in my opinion that rarity is our doom!

In other words maturity.

Is'nt interesting that when it comes to the most important (ok one of the most important) decisions of our lives-who we choose as a life partner, that THAT is the one time we abandon rational thought? But love will do funny things to your mind.... Literally (see scientific research on the brain altering chemicals of wo/men in love).

For that reason if for no other, when it comes to coupling, you need to be hyper vigilant in your rational thought and judgment. The sad part is that most people, even if they ATTEMPT rational assessment of their true compatibility with a prospective partner, have no concept of what a serious relation, or marriage, involves. How could they until they've experienced one.

They, in fairness are not context dropping, because you can't drop a context you have no knowledge of in the first place. But understanding the breadth and magnitude of a committed relationship is simply out of the experiential reality of most aspiring couplers.

What is more, They have no idea what values they should apply to judge whether a partner reflects there own, as Rand would say. Yet, that does not stop them from applying what they have at hand... I.e., "he's hot", "He's entertaining", "he spoils me." I'm not saying that those should be inconsequential, I'm just saying that if you choose by those criteria the chances your mate will have the qualities that you "really need" for a successful relationship is a crap shoot at best. You might as well stick your finger in a telephone book. What chance do the "love at first sight ers" really have?

That's why the young and "lost in love" types seem to make such horrible choices when it comes choosing a partner, even really smart chooser who have great judgment in all other aspects of their life ( recall the book "Smart Women, Bad Decisions" ear... Some such title). How can you make good decisions when you not only think with your heart, but you switch off your brain at the same moment.

Some how, I followed what I considered to be an objectivist approach, as the author laid out above, more by my rational instinct than conscious design. Here's how.

1. I Waited till I was forty to settle on a life partner... I.e., my wife.
I was fully formed, so was she. What chance do you have of finding a reflection of yourself, or even a complimentary personality when you are BOTH in a process of formation?

2. I dated my wife for 7 years before we married.... The last 4 we lived together. No one can keep up a false front for that long. That time allowed me to see her for the person she truly is, and allowed her to see me for whom I truly am. I saw her in thousands of situations situations. I saw how she handled adversity when the chips were really down. Most importantly she proved herself to be a "trooper." She could handle the worst life scenarios by herself ( losing a first husband, hurricanes, literally, financial destitution, etc.) so I knew since she could stand on her own two feet in a storm, together we could handle whatever life had to throw at us ( and yes it has thrown us some curves).

3. She was a great success personally and professionally before I met her. So yes my admiration for her as a person kindled my attraction and affection for her. She was the Dagny of her field. She was/is smarter than me. She didn't need me, she WANTED me, and I her.

4. And yes there was chemistry, but more on a soul to soul level. I admired in her the values I sought for myself. She was someone who personified the attributes I Hoped I inculcated in my own character, particularly those I aspired to, but had not fully attained.

And she saw me and my potential as a person aspiring to be the best person I could be.... And, amazingly.... She had the nerve to say as much to my face.... No games! She made me want to be a better person, or at least one who would try to be all he could be.

Being who she is, as her authentic self, has allowed me to boldly Persue the same. She may not be the reason I'm an Objectivist but she has allowed my to be a better Objectivist Today and more importantly, the better Objective tomorrow.

Yes, I hit the partnership Lottery, but then Objectist make their own luck, I think that is kind of Jennifer's point.

P.S. Welcome to our little water cooler Jennifer. The experience and background you bring to the table is exactly what we need and when we need it.

My wife used to watch that. Too much of a reminder of how much I hated the dating scene.

I have not been to a prostitute but I don't have a problem with it. Sex is natural and a good stress reliever.

Oh you silly boy ! Girls can be just as naughty as boys ! ;) ( Go watch old episodes of Sex in the City)

True but I think a lot of people do what they can to seem more appealing to the opposite sex. Not to the extremes James did but it's not always easy to know for sure if you are seeing the real person. I think it's natural after you have feelings for someone to give them the benefit of the doubt a lot of times. Relationships are complicated.