Morality, Normality, and Decency

Is homosexuality normal? Are homosexual practices moral? To answer those questions we need to understand the nature of moral values and the meaning of normality as they relate to homosexuality.

Objectivism, the philosophy, does not specifically address homosexuality except in the very oblique way related to those statements by Objectivism’s author, Ayn Rand, and Objectivism’s brief but specific statements on the role of sex in human experience. With regard to Objectivism and homosexuality, we must emphasize the following:

1. Within the scope of Objectivism, as a philosophy, sexual practice, as a personal choice, is a non-issue.

2. Objectivism flatly rejects as immoral all forms of coercion or abuse, physical, verbal, or psychological, of anyone, regardless of what sexual activities they engage in, baring coerced or abusive sex, which are rejected for the same reason all other forms are tolerated.

A Non-objectivist Movement

Since it is Objectivism and its principles that are under assault by the “anti-homophobia mission”, to demonstrate the nature of its inconsistency with the principles of Objectivism and its attempts to subvert them, I will examine those principles of Objectivism germane to this issue.

The movement emphasizes desire (or passion) as one of its main points. It does not view homosexuality as what a person does, but as what a person is, and therefore regards homosexual desire as a manifestation of the homosexual’s essential nature with which they are born. To ignore or repress those desires, it is contended, is tantamount to denying one’s own nature, a rejection of a metaphysical fact.

This specific argument will be addressed more fully in the next chapter. In this chapter we are concerned more with the nature of desire as it relates to Objectivist Ethics.

For anyone not familiar with Objectivist ethics, we strongly recommend Ayn Rand’s most concise explication of those principles in the The Virtue of Selfishness.For a full understanding of Objectivist ethics, one really needs to read all of Ayn Rand’s major works, because there are so many examples, and references, and allusions to her ethics distributed throughout all her writing.

Moral Values ¹

We begin with some of Ayn Rand’s own statements regarding Objectivist moral values.

The Only man who desires to be moral is the man who desires to live. ²

Man must choose his actions, values, and goals by the standard of that which is proper to man—in order to achieve, maintain, fulfill and enjoy that ultimate value, that end in itself, which is his own life. ³

The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live.⁴

A value presupposes a purpose, (an objective or goal), relative to which things or actions are evaluated as good (benefitting the purpose), bad (harming the purpose), or neutral (unrelated to the purpose).

The Sense Of Life Objectivists are right to emphasize the importance of desire. Without desire, there is no purpose, no objective, and no goal. The answer to the so-called “is/ought” dilemma in ethics is simple. If there is nothing desired, there is no ought. If there is no desire to live, there is nothing that “ought” to be done.

Moral values are only for those who desire to live. Moral values tell those who want to live what the purpose of life is and how to achieve that purpose. Moral values tell the person who chooses to live how to live; “to live, this is what you ought to do.”

In Objectivist ethics the purpose of moral values is the life of the individual, not just the sustaining of that life, but living it successfully and happily in this world.

The “ultimate value, that end in itself” is one’s “own life;” the purpose of that life is one’s enjoyment of it. The fulfillment of that purpose, (enjoying one’s life), is the achievement of that value, (the sustaining of ones life); because, sustaining one’s life is only possible by fulfilling the requirements of human nature, which, properly fulfilled, is enjoyment.

The Requirements of Man’s Nature

It is this fact, that human life must conform to the requirements of human nature, that Ayn Rand refers to:

“The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics—the standard by which one judges what is good or evil—is man’s life, or; that which is required for man’s survival qua man.”⁵

All creatures except man, live by doing whatever their immediate desires prompt them to do. Desires play the same essential role in human beings they do in all creatures. They are the motivators of behavior. A desire is a call to action. In the animals, instinct provides an automatic response to every desire, the call to action specifies the action required and instinct automatically provides it.

Desire is a call to action in man too, but what action is called for is not specified. For man, there is no predetermined appropriate response to any desire. In man, there is only the desire. Before man can respond to desire, he must discover the nature of the desire; what it is a desire for; what is required to fulfill it, and what are the consequences of fulfilling it? And when he knows all these things, there is still no action.

For man, there is no direct connection between desires and actions. The missing connection is “instinct.” Man is not an instinctive creature, he is a volitional creature, which means, to act at all, even to do what his desires prompt him to do, he must consciously choose to do it.

This is the distinctive characteristic of man that distinguishes him from all other creatures and determines those aspects of human nature which are uniquely human, the ability and necessity to live by conscious choice. It means that everything a human being does and everything he thinks he must do and think by choice. It means every act is a chosen act, and to not choose is to not act, and to not act is to not live. For man, living is choosing.

Human Choice

Ayn Rand, unfortunately, used the expression, “free will.” There is nothing wrong with that term as she meant it, but almost no one else uses it with the meaning she had in mind. The expression, “free will,” as it is popularly used, is loaded with Calvinistic theological baggage on one side and Freudian psychobabble on the other. “Sure man has free will but all his choices are either determined by God or by his toilet training.” It is this common view of free will that makes people say things like, “nobody really has free will, you can’t do just anything you want, try jumping off a building,” or, “your choices are really determined by your heredity, your subconscious, your environment, your education, your economic status, ad infinitum.

Of course none of these things have anything to do with this matter of choice. I do not say man has, “free will,“preferring the term, volition, meaning, the faculty of choice. That faculty not only makes conscious choice possible, but makes it an absolute necessity. A human being cannot act without consciously choosing to act.

Normality

“Normality,” is not a concept, as far as I know, Objectivism directly addresses. Nevertheless, it is a very important concept which is either assumed or explicitly named in many discussions in such diverse fields as biology, psychology, sociology, law, and politics.

The word normal is understood in a number of different ways, and has different meanings in different contexts. The specific meaning I am interested in is related to behavior, and is applicable to the behavior of all organisms, but specifically, human behavior. Some human behavior is obviously abnormal, and some is abnormal to such a degree that a whole field of psychology is dedicated to it. But what normal or abnormal exactly mean, even in the field of abnormal psychology, is not perfectly clear.

Dictionary definitions⁶ are not particularly useful in discovering the meaning I am after. Normal human behavior is not determined by what is customary or average, the usual, or what most people do. In terms of human behavior, for any given society, the customary, average, usual, common behavior might be quite abnormal.

By normal behavior, I mean that behavior which is appropriate to the nature of an organism. One definition of normal in this sense is this one provided, “fifty years ago,” by, “ researcher C.D. King…. Normality, he said, is ‘that which functions according to its design.’”⁷ This captures the essential meaning I intend, but the word, “design,“suggests more than is necessary, and raises the question of who or what did the designing.

A better definition, meaning the same thing, is this: normal means true to nature. Every kind of organism has a specific nature that determines the attributes and characteristics common to all organisms of that kind. The nature of any specific organism, its natural attributes and characteristics, determines the behavior required of that organism to survive, and in all creatures, except man, that behavior is provided as part of its nature.

Organisms of any specific kind that do not have the attributes and characteristics natural to that kind of organism, like those frogs born with extra or missing limbs and organs recently in the news, are “abnormal.” The behavior of any animal that does not conform to the requirements of its nature is also “abnormal.” Abnormalities of either the physical characteristics or behavior of any creature greatly reduces its chance of survival and is usually fatal.

Normal Human Behavior

The question of normality in humans is complicated by the fact that humans are volitional beings. The behavior of all other creatures is determined directly by their nature. Human behavior is determined by their nature only to the extent that some behavior is required but no specific behavior is directly determined.

Does that mean man can do just anything? No, because man does have a specific nature, and whatever behavior is chosen must conform to that nature. For example, the unique psychological characteristic of human nature is volition, the ability and necessity to choose. Normal human behavior must conform to the requirements of this aspect of his nature:

• The ability (and necessity) to choose. A human being can do nothing except by conscious choice, therefore all a human being is or does, his success or failure, his happiness or lack of it, his very life is determined by what he chooses. The necessity to choose cannot be escaped and neither can the consequences of those choices, or his responsibility for them.

• The ability (and necessity) to acquire knowledge. A human being can make choices only if he knows what choices are available and has some way of knowing what the consequences of those choices are. A human being must therefore seek knowledge, and neither pretend to knowledge he does not have, or attempt to evade knowledge he does have.

• The ability (and necessity) to create. A human being must create by productive effort what is required by his nature to live and enjoy his life. What is required for a human to live and enjoy his life is not provided by nature. Nature provides the resources, but discovering those resources and how to use them to fulfill his desires, and the act of finding and using them is productive effort.

A man may choose not to fulfill the requirements of his psychological nature, but he cannot live normally that way. It is not normal for a human being to live as a parasite, stealing or mooching from others who produce what his life requires, like a bloodsucker or louse. It is not normal for a human being to live as a pet or a slave of others, living on handouts from those he acts to please. It is not normal for a human being to live like a plant, depending on accident or luck, waiting for nature, fortune, or God to provide the things he needs to live and enjoy his life. These ways of living are normal for some organism, because it is their nature; it is not man’s nature, however, and no man living contrary to his nature can live successfully or enjoy his life.

Human beings have a physical nature as well as a psychological one. The full significance of this aspect of human nature is sometimes neglected in philosophy. Everything man does he does with a physical body. Everything he knows begins with knowledge derived through the senses of the physical body. Even his mind, consciousness, and feelings depend on the physical body, without which there are no mind, consciousness, or feelings.

The human body has a specific nature. Man cannot choose to use it in just any way. The nature of the body determines what must be done to maintain it and how it may or may not be used to ensure it is not harmed or destroyed. To sustain his body, for example, man must eat, but he cannot eat just anything. The scope and variety of what man may eat is nearly infinite, but many things are toxic, and may not be eaten, and there are other things which man’s food must contain, essential nutrients, necessary to the health of the body.

Every aspect of the body, every organ, has a specific set of functions which determines how they must or may be used. The function of the mouth is eating and drinking and emergency breathing. It is also used for speaking. It may also be used for whistling, smoking, chewing gum, and kissing. Parts of the mouth may be pierced or cut. Which of these are normal uses of the mouth are determined by the nature of the mouth and its function.

The function of the nose is breathing. It is possible to insert food and nutrients into the body through the nose. This is sometimes done as part of medical procedures. It is not considered normal and is done only because the conditions are extraordinary. When one is well it is not normal to “eat” through the nose, because that is not the natural function of the nose.

Immoral and Abnormal

Morality pertains only to choice. Men who are born with physical or mental abnormalities are not immoral, and no behavior caused by those abnormalities, is immoral.

Some behavior which is technically abnormal, because it is contrary to some aspect of the nature of man, is simply ignorance or stupidity. Children frequently put things in their ears or nose which clearly do not belong there. The acts are abnormal and the experiences usually instructive, but certainly there is nothing immoral in such acts. Stupidity is certainly not confined to children, and many adults abuse both their minds and bodies with choices and acts which are contrary to their nature and abnormal. Even in adults, if it is truly ignorance and not evasion or defiance, abnormal behavior is not immoral, only stupid. The consequences of the abnormal behavior are not mitigated by this fact, however.

To intentionally and knowingly do what is abnormal is immoral. Normality only means that which is appropriate to the kind of organism being discussed. Normal human behavior only means, that kind of behavior appropriate to the kind of organism a human being is, the kind of behavior consistent with the requirements of man’s nature, all of man’s nature, both psychological and physical.

To intentionally do what is abnormal is to intentionally act contrary to the requirements of one’s own nature. Since, a “man must choose his actions, values, and goals by the standard of that which is proper to man—in order to achieve, maintain, fulfill and enjoy that ultimate value, that end in itself, which is his own life,”2 to choose to act by any other standard is either an act in defiance of one’s own nature or the attempt to enjoy one’s life as something other than a human being. Both must fail and both are immoral.

Desire, the Source of Wrong Behavior

If acting contrary to one’s nature is harmful, why would anyone do it? I have already noted that in many cases, it is because of ignorance. But many others choose self-destructive behavior knowingly, even defiantly. What could possibly make them do it?

I noted earlier that desires are the motivators of behavior. In every case where someone intentionally practices self-destructive behavior, by their own testimony, it will be because of desire, a desire they feel so overwhelmingly they either justify the action based on the desire (it must be normal if I desire it so strongly) or act in defiance of their own best judgement, because, “they just cannot help it.”

But if desires prompt us to act contrary to the requirements of our nature, they must be in conflict with our natures. How can this be? What is wrong with us? Why would we have desires that cause us to be our own destroyers?

Are human desires and feelings really involuntary? If they are, how can one be responsible for them? Where do human desires and feelings come from?

Human Desires and Feelings

Some desires and all feelings are involuntary. We are not responsible for what is involuntary. Neither desires or feelings exist in a vacuum, however, there is always a context and a cause for them, and almost all human desires are developed, not provided as part of our natures at birth.

Except for those very basic “desires,” more appropriately called biological drives or urges, all other human desires are developed through learning and experience. There is almost nothing one can name that humans desire that anyone is born with a desire for.

No one is born with a desire for a burger with fries. No one is born with a desire to watch a certain television program or to watch television at all. No one is born with a desire to play any sport, do any job, buy any product, or listen to any music.

Before we can desire anything, we must learn that it exists, what its nature is, what there is about it to be desired. From the very beginning this is so. For example, except for the fact we desire food, which in its undeveloped state is little more than a sense of discomfort we come to associate with our stomach and not eating, everything we desire to eat we had to learn about before we could desire it.

Two Kinds of Desire

We use the word desire for two different kinds of things. There is an inextricable relationship between them, but to prevent the kind of confusion that attends most discussions of desire, this difference must be made explicit.

One kind of desire only means something someone has chosen to obtain or accomplish. When we talk about a, “desire for an education,” or the “desire for a career,” we mean something quite different than a, “desire for a big juicy steak,” or a, “desire for a hot shower.” The apparent difference sometimes noted between these two kinds of desire, that the first kind is not for something that is an end in itself as is the second kind, is not our point, and not exactly correct. Both an education and a career can be very satisfying and pleasure producing ends in themselves as well as the means to other ends, and, as satisfying as a juicy steak or hot shower are in themselves, nourishment and being clean are desirable remote ends also achieved by the immediate satisfaction of those desires.

The important difference in these desires is the “feeling” of desire, or “passion,” we associate with them. While there are feelings associated with all our thoughts, in general the kind of desire we have for proximate ends, like an education, jobs, or flu shots, are not accompanied by the kind of “felt” desire we have for food, or comfort, or sex.

When someone says, “I want an ice cream cone,” it is the feeling, that urge to taste something cold, sweet, and crunchy, one means, but when someone says, “I want to get the car washed,” there is probably not much “feeling” of desire in that.

While we usually associate desire with a feeling, a passion or an urge, it is really the other way around. The feeling is the result of the desire, (the thing we consciously want), and different desires produce different kinds of feelings.

This is evident form the fact we still have desires for things we know are “good,” even when we do not feel those desires. When sick, for example, the very idea of food may produce a feeling of revulsion, even if it is food we are especially fond of. We know we still like (desire) that food, even when our feeling does not agree with the desire.

The distinction and relationship between desires in these two senses, the intellectually chosen objectives and the feelings that do or do not accompany them, is very important. We can change, simply by choosing to, what our intellectual objectives are, but the feelings are involuntary. If we have a chosen desire for something, and discover it is not good for us, or that some other objective would be better, we can, and usually do, change that objective. If we have a felt passion or desire, we cannot just decide not to have the feeling and have a different one.

Where Do Feelings Come From?

While I am particularly interested in those feelings we call desires or passions, all feelings are derived and behave in essentially the same way. I said, “almost all human desires are developed, not provided as part of our natures at birth.” This is how Ayn Rand expressed it:

“Man is born with an emotional mechanism, just as he is born with cognitive mechanism; but, at birth, both are “tabula rasa.” It is man’s cognitive faculty, his mind, that determines the content of both. Man’s emotional mechanism is like an electronic computer, which his mind has to program—and the programming consists of the values his mind chooses.”

The emotions that Ayn Rand is specifically making reference to are those that directly relate to one’s overall emotional state, one’s happiness or unhappiness, or, in her words, “joy or suffering.” But all our feelings and emotions depend on the content of consciousness, both our immediate perceptions, as well as, and more importantly, our conceptual consciousness. As Ayn Rand wrote, “Emotions are produced by man’s premises, held consciously or subconsciously.”⁸

She also said:

“Emotions are not tools of cognition…one must differentiate between one’s thoughts and one’s emotions with full clarity and precision. One…has to know that which one does know, and distinguish it from that which one feels….to distinguish one’s own considered judgment from one’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.”⁹

The Reason/Passion Dichotomy

The “Sense Of Life Objectivists,” (SOLO) credo¹⁰ repudiates “any reason/passion dichotomy,” but that repudiation is absurd. I suppose the intention of this repudiation is based on the Objectivist rejection of the soul-body dichotomy, like that described in For the New Intellectual and elsewhere:

“The New Intellectual…will…discard the soul-body dichotomy. He will discard its irrational conflicts and contradictions, such as: mind versus heart, thought versus action, reality versus desire, the practical versus the moral. He will be an integrated man.”¹¹

But the Objectivists do not mean what SOLO means; the rejection of the dichotomy does not mean an obliteration of the differences. The Objectivist rejection of all such dichotomies is in opposition to those philosophies that make the differences between these things irreconcilable and contradictory. It is not a denial of the differences.

To simply reject any dichotomy between reason and passion is like denying any dichotomy between hands and eyes. The hands and eyes are different things but we can learn to coordinate their behavior. Reason and passion are different things, but we can learn to integrate their function. The proper coordination and integration between reason and passion cannot be achieved simply by denying there is any difference or “dichotomy” between them; it can only be achieved by identifying the differences and integrating their function objectively.

Ayn Rand describes the proper relationship between reason and passion (emotion) this way:

“An emotion is an automatic response, an automatic effect of man’s value premises. An effect, not a cause. There is no necessary clash, no dichotomy between man’s reason and his emotions—provided he observes their proper relationship. A rational man knows—or makes it a point to discover—the source of his emotions, the basic premises from which they come; if his premises are wrong, he corrects them. He never acts on emotions for which he cannot account, the meaning of which he does not understand. In appraising a situation, he knows why he reacts as he does and whether he is right. He has no inner conflicts, his mind and his emotions are integrated, his consciousness is in perfect harmony. His emotions are not his enemies, they are his means of enjoying life. But they are not his guide; the guide is his mind. This relationship cannot be reversed, however. If a man takes his emotions as the cause and his mind as their passive effect, if he is guided by his emotions and uses his mind only to rationalize or justify them somehow—then he is acting immorally, he is condemning himself to misery, failure, defeat, and he will achieve nothing but destruction—his own and that of others.”¹²

I have already noted, “all our feelings and emotions depend on the content of consciousness, both our immediate perceptions, as well as, and more importantly, our conceptual consciousness.” The common example is of one’s reaction to seeing a snake. If one thinks all snakes are slimy, dangerous, and poisonous their reaction will be fear and revulsion, but if one knows snakes are not slimy, but only legless reptiles which are usually harmless creatures, though sometimes poisonous, the reaction will mostly be one of interest. All our emotional reactions are the result of what we know, understand, and value. It is reversing this process and attempting to make our knowledge, our understanding, and our values conform to our feelings that is the cause of all emotional instability and irrational behavior. Let me recast my quote of Ayn Rand above to explain:

“There is no necessary clash, no dichotomy between man’s reason and his emotions—provided he observes their proper relationship. The emotions include all of one’s feelings, of course, such as one’s sexual desires and inclinations, or “orientation,” for example. So long as he observes that, “proper relationship,” his “emotions are not his enemies, they are his means of enjoying life. But they are not his guide; the guide is his mind. This relationship cannot be reversed …. If a man takes his emotions,” including his desires and passions, “as the cause … if he is guided by his emotions and uses his mind only to rationalize or justify them somehow—then he is … condemning himself to misery, failure, defeat, and he will achieve nothing but destruction—his own and that of others.”

The Nature Of Sex and Sexual Desire

Since the specific emotions or passions with which I am concerned are those associated with sexual desire and practices, I must say something about the nature of those desires. In simple terms they are the desires we associate with sex, that specific difference in people which marks them, physiologically, as male and female.

In the second chapter I made these comments with regard to the The Objectivist Center article by Damian Moskovitz, “Is it moral to be homosexual?”.

“For human beings, all preferences require learning, before there can be any preferences at all. One is not born preferring anything. Sexually, all one is born with are those physiological attributes that enable one to have sexual pleasure and the physiological desire for that pleasure. Even what that desire is has to be learned.”

“For the record, scientific evidence does not recognize “sexual orientation,” only the sex of an organism, as either male or female. That is the sexual orientation.”

“What is “sexual orientation?” Physiologically, one is either male or female. (Hermaphrodites and other physiological anomalies are considered abnormal, because they are.)”

“It is a very simple matter to determine one’s sexual nature. Most already know what it is, but if they do not, they can look in a mirror to see what their plumbing is. It is either male or female. That is their sexual nature.”

“If everything goes right, those with male “sexual orientation” will desire females and vice versa.”

I made these comments without explanation or evidence in response to the wild and baseless assertions of the article. Here, I provide the explanation for those comments.

I have explained the objective meaning of normality, which has both psychological and physiological aspects. In the area of sexual practices, those aspects of normality which our physical natures determine are not only ignored, but frequently intentionally defied.

It is not necessary to describe the details of what every normal adult clearly understands regarding the physical attributes pertaining to sex, or exactly what their nature is. There is no question that their function is meant for use by a man and a woman.

If one could choose their desires and determined to choose desires that would exactly match the requirements of their physiological nature (that is, what is physiologically normal), in the area of sex, they would have to choose to desire the opposite sex. There is no rational objective reason for choosing otherwise.

It is a fact, many have sexual desires that are not for the opposite sex, which means either, we do not choose our desires, or some make wrong choices leading to wrong desires. To understand which it is, we need to understand something about how we acquire and develop desires, particularly those pertaining to sex. Since this is not a course in psychology or philosophy, I can only briefly describe those principles: association, reinforcement, excitement, habituation, and thinking.

Association

Sexual desire, like all other specific human desires are developed, not given or predetermined. In general, the desires we have as adults are the result of our experiences and our knowledge. Our experiences introduce us to almost all of the things like food, activities, and particular sensations (like hearing music) for which we develop desires or aversions. But while we are experiencing we are also learning. We learn what things are actually good for us (however good or bad, pleasurable or painful, they seem by experience alone), and what our natures are that make some things good and others bad for us.

Most of the so-called “physical” desires have an element called “association.” For example, the smell of coffee and bacon, for those who have come to associate those aromas with pleasant breakfasts, find that their desire for food (especially breakfast food) is greatly stimulated by those aromas.

Sexual desires are almost entirely associative. While we are born with the physiological capacity for sexual desire and pleasure, it is entirely undifferentiated and non-specific, just as is our desire for food. One must learn what is sexually stimulating and pleasurable, and what is not. For every individual, those experiences and those things associated with one’s earliest sexual experiences, if pleasurable become associated with sex itself. This is one reason fetishes are so common. In a sense, all sex is “fetish,” and the only difference between what we call a fetish and what is considered perfectly normal sexual stimulation is, in fact, normality itself. Within the scope of what is physiologically and psychologically normal, it is anything goes.

This is the reason a clear understanding of what normal means is required, especially during those years of sexual development. A clear sense of normality and how it is determined by human nature itself, (not the dictates of anyone’s ideology, or custom, or what is socially acceptable), is necessary for healthy sexual development.

It is also why children ought to be protected from distortions of normality. This is well understood by those militant groups who are not interested in normality, and is one reason they seek to influence children at ever younger ages.¹³

So called, “sexual orientation,” is one of the aspects of sex that are learned and developed. That, “orientation,” like all other developed desires and feelings, will be determined by one’s earliest pleasurable experiences and one’s mental evaluation of those experiences. Like all other aspects of human nature, everyone’s experiences are different, and the specific things which individuals find pleasurable will be different for each individual. For some, no experience is likely to cause confusion about their normal sexuality. For others, experiences can be confusing, and unless their experiences are carefully controlled by their best possible reason and a ruthless intention to be normal (that is, consistent with their nature as a human being), they are easily persuaded to act contrary to the requirements of their own nature.

Reinforcement

We know that those things which are always pleasurable when experienced usually become more desirable the more often we experience them, and those which are not pleasurable, or even painful, become less desirable with experience. This phenomenon is called reinforcement.

Sexual pleasure is one of the most intense forms of pleasure, in some cases so potent, it can mask or even subsume some kinds of pain. It is no surprise that sexual pleasure is self-reinforcing and that pleasurable sexual experiences produce some of the most intense desires.

Sexual “reinforcement” is not restricted to the actual sex act, but includes everything that is associated with it, without regard to the actual nature of those things. Some very unnatural and dangerous practices become associated with sex in this way.

Excitement

Many kinds of pleasure are heightened by excitement. This is especially true of sex. It is not necessary for that excitement to be specifically “sexual” in nature, so long as it is, in the mind of the individual, “associated,” with sex.

One common distortion of this aspect of sex are frequently sex-linked disorders like pyromania, kleptomania and other paraphilias (pedophilia and exhibitionism, for example).

The relationship of excitement to reinforcement and association is obvious and the fact that without careful rational evaluation of what excitement is appropriate and normal, distortions can easily be developed which are overwhelming.

Habituation

Human beings, being volitional creatures, do not have an automatic pattern of behavior like animal instinct, instead, human beings are able to develop their own automated patterns of behavior. This ability, called habituation, is one of the most important aspects of human nature. Without it, almost nothing of any level of complexity would be possible from eating a meal to using language or working out complex mathematical problems.

Habituation enables human beings to develop both simple and complex patterns of overt physical behavior as well as patterns of thought and emotional responses. We develop habituated patterns of behavior, especially for all those aspects of life that are routine and repetitious, to leave our attention and minds free to concentrate on more interesting and important matters.

Habituated routines are a requirement of human nature. They provide the same kind of efficiency and effectiveness that instinct provides the animals, except that they are, “programmable,” and, within limits, “alterable.” The essential methods of forming and strengthening habits involves deliberate intention, (leaning to touch-type, for example) repetition, (learning the times tables, for example), and pleasure reinforcement (sexual practices, for example).

Before habits are well-formed, they are quite flexible and can be altered with little effort. The longer habits are reinforced and the stronger the emotional and physiological associations, the more difficult it is to alter or eliminate habitual practices and behaviors. Because habituated behavior is, “automated,” it is often the most difficult to notice in ourselves, which is one reason why habituated behavior is not often changed. The rational person will make a point of observing their own behavior, of attempting to discover habits which might be wasting their time, or energy, or other resources, or preventing them from being fully in control of themselves. When habitual ways of acting, thinking, and feeling have become so automated the means for judging them is completely eliminated, there may be no hope of changing them.

Habituated behavior frequently becomes so completely automatic and familiar the it is mistaken for one’s “nature.“Often, how the habits are formed, or even when, are forgotten, and one cannot imagine that they were not always part of their behavior. They have become the individual’s personality. Most people assume this, for example, about their own sexual, “preferences,” and sexual, “practices.”

Thinking

Association, reinforcement, excitement, habituation all play a role in the development of our sexual interests and desires, but the most important part of that development is our thinking, which ultimately determines the specific character of that development, becomes part of it, and determines how it is expressed behaviorally.

We do nothing we do not first think of or about. Since everything we do we must consciously choose to do, before we can do anything, we must choose it, and to choose it, we must be conscious of it, that is, we must think it.

In the process of sexual development, what one thinks, and what one thinks about is crucial. Since the feelings, the emotions and desires are determined by one’s thinking, their values, and their intentions, it is paramount that one’s thinking be rational, their values objective, and their intentions be to live rationally, morally, and normally.

The development of our values and our thinking processes are subject to the same influences of association, reinforcement, excitement, and habituation as all other behavior. We develop habitual thought patterns, which are reinforced when pleasurable and exciting. The content of those thoughts, the associations, will come to dominate our interests, desires, and usual ways of thinking.

It is also our thoughts that are the major contributors to that development. This is especially true in the area of sex, because the thinking itself produces pleasure, is exciting, and habituating.

While what we experience is not always voluntary, and whether those experiences are pleasurable or painful, exciting or boring, may not be within our field of choice; what we think about them always is. It is ultimately what we think about our experiences that determines how we evaluate them, which in turn determines how we feel about them and whether we desire them or not.

Sexual desires do not happen to us, we learn and develop them; sexual orientation is not a condition we are born with, it is the product of our own thoughts and actions.

What is the right approach to sexual desires? Do we examine desires in the light of what we know to be true about our natures and the requirements of those natures and determine to adjust our thinking and values to conform to our understanding, or do we simply recognize we have desires, without questioning either their source or nature, and adjust our thinking and values to conform to our desires, our passions, or our “orientation?” The first method of dealing with desires is the Objectivist method, the second is the method of the subjectivist, masquerading as an Objectivist.

I Am Worthy

Self-esteem is used by Ayn Rand to designate that general emotional state arising from the recognition of ones own moral integrity and virtue. The term, in popular usage, has been greatly corrupted. As Ayn Rand used the term, it only means one understands they are competent and worthy of the life they enjoy, that they deserve it, because they have earned it. A man’s self-esteem is, “his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living.”¹⁴ Everything else is a fraud, a fraud one can perpetrate against everyone except one’s self.

Man’s emotional structure precludes his ability to enjoy what he has not earned and does not deserve. He can gain wealth without earning or producing it, but if he gets wealth that way, he knows his wealth is a lie, that the wealth that ought to be the concretization of his productive effort, is only loot, the evidence of his crookedness or his pandering to the weaknesses and vices of others; he can have pleasure he does not deserve, but can never enjoy the sense of human integrity that knows, “I am worthy of this pleasure and my enjoyment of it is both a reward and affirmation of my virtue.”

Self-esteem is the emotional reward of integrity. One cannot violate one’s own integrity and have genuine self-esteem.

Integrity requires that one’s knowledge be fully integrated, not compartmentalized, not harboring contradictions or evading truth.

Integrity requires one’s values to be based on reality, all of reality, their own nature and the nature of the world they live in.

Integrity requires one to act consistently in accordance with their knowledge and values.

Worthiness and self-esteem come from knowing one is competent to live their life successfully in this world and that they are living it non-contradictorily, consistent with their knowledge, values, and nature, and that all they have and all they enjoy they deserve, because they have earned it and have achieved it by their own effort. All that is less than this is experienced as guilt, and ought to be.

In the realm of sex, worthiness is a very important issue, and I shall address that application when evaluating, What’s Wrong With Homosexuality?

The Virtue of Repression

Another word from the annals of Freudian psychobabble is repression. How such a concept could possibly be smuggled into the body of ideas that are supposed to be Objectivist is difficult to even imagine.

The word “repression” found its way into the corpus of psychology in the 1930s. It was actually Sigmund’s daughter, Anna Freud, who introduced the word together with “denial,” as part of the Freudian theory of psychological defense mechanisms, supposed to prevent unacceptable ideas or impulses from entering the consciousness.

There is terrible confusion about this idea of repression, and it is used, almost always, as a means of justifying choices, that on any other grounds, would be unacceptable. Repression is nothing more than self-imposed limits. It is not oppression, not self-abnegation, not self-sacrifice, it is self-control.

Repression means choosing not to do something one has a desire to do. It is impossible to live as a human being without repressing desires.

In the first place it is not possible to fulfill and satisfy all our desires. We just desire too much (and only stop desiring more than we can have when we are dead). Life is like a menu, we may desire most or even all of the items on the menu, but neither time nor our appetites allow us to eat everything on it. We must choose something, and whatever we choose, it means we have to “repress” our desires for everything else.

There are always conflicts in desires. There are only so many hours in a day, we only have so many resources, and every day there are more things we desire to do and desire to have than it is physically possible for us to do and have. We cannot fulfill our desires for two or more things that all require the same hours of our time. We cannot read the book, watch the television program, play the game of cards, and wash the car. We have to make a choice and that means “repressing” one (or more) of our desires.

We do not usually think of such choices as repression because the choices usually involve picking from all the desirable things, the one we desire the most. (Washing the car is probably out.)

Sometimes we desire what we ourselves know is wrong. If those desires are not strong, we have no problem, “repressing,“them, because it is our own values that prompt us to avoid what is wrong. It is our values that enable us to determine a thing is wrong, even when desired, because it conflicts with all that we know is right and best for us.

It is only when a desire for something wrong is very strong that the question of, “repression,” usually comes up. Some of us have learned the, “hard way,” just how bad the consequences of yielding to some desires are, and would never consider doing it again, no matter how strong or, “overwhelming,” or, “persistent,” the desire is.

Anyone who has ever broken a bad habit or overcome a behavior that was harmful to themselves (like eating too much) has done so by “repressing” desires. Everyone who was ever tempted to do something they knew was wrong and chose not to do it, “repressed” a desire.

There is another word for repression. It is self-discipline. Self-discipline is being in rational control of ones desires and passions for one’s own benefit. One or the other must be in control of one’s life and behavior, the rational self or the irrational passions. Repression only means self-control, those free of repression are out-of-control.

Freedom is Self-discipline

Freedom means freedom to choose and determine for one’s self, how to live and what to do.

Discipline means control. One is “disciplined,” by whatever determines or is in control of an individual’s behavior. If one is under another’s discipline, a slave-owner or an oppressive government, for example, they are not free. Freedom is being under one’s own discipline and one’s own control.

Human beings have only one faculty for making choices, their rational consciousness. Self-discipline means rational self-control, it means, making one’s choices by means of one’s best possible reason.

Surrendering ones choice to whim, or passion, or desire is surrendering reason to the control of the irrational. One must choose to act, and desire is the motive, but which desires one chooses to pursue and how one chooses to pursue them must be chosen rationally and objectively.

Freedom is self-discipline, it is the opposite of being disciplined by something else, one’s desire, one’s feeling, one’s circumstances, or other individuals. It’s one or the other; one either takes the authority for their lives and makes the choices of how they will live, or they surrender that authority to something or someone else. Almost always, the act of surrendering to a desire or a passion makes one subject to someone else’s authority, the authority of whoever it is that supplies the object of the desire or passion.

Surrendering to the desire for security makes one the subject of the government that “guarantees” it, surrendering to the desire for a free lunch makes one the lackey of the politician that promises it, surrendering to a desire for approval, makes one the lap dog of whoever provides it, surrendering to the desire for drugs, makes one the servant of the drug pusher, surrendering to the desire for sex, makes one the slave of the next prostitute, pimp, or whore that comes along.

In Praise of Prudery

The pejorative meaning of the word, “prude,” certainly has its use and is appropriately applied to those busy-body mind-everybody’s-business-but-their-own types that would like to foist their personal moral values on everyone else, which in this day, usually means some kind of PC-multicutural-inclusivism.

During my research for this book I discovered one or two places where those who do not agree that homosexuality ought to be normalized were called “prudes.” No doubt, some such are prudes. I am not much concerned with individuals being called prudes, especially if they are, but, there is a much more important meaning to the word prude than the pejorative one, and I am concerned that the word prude with that meaning be cast out with the prudes.

The word prudent means, “1. Wise in handling practical matters; exercising good judgment or common sense. 2. Careful in regard to one’s own interests; provident. 3. Careful about one’s conduct; circumspect.”¹⁵

I have a wonderful Irish Catholic friend who occasionally relates colorful stories of mutual friends and acquaintances who have gotten themselves into various difficulties through their sexual indiscretions. He invariably remarks, in his lovely Irish brogue, “wouldn’t you think the Good Lord could have found another way for us to procreate? This way gets us into so much trouble!” Of course it is not, “the way,” that’s gets us into trouble, but like all the other human attributes, it is how we use it.

And that, of course, is the heart of all this discussion. There are two views I have been contrasting, the one that every human faculty and attribute is under the control of the individual’s ability to reason and choose, the other holds there are aspects of human nature that are beyond the rational control of the individual.

I hold the former view, which means one ought to use their ability to reason ruthlessly to insure the behavior they choose really enables them to achieve the purpose of their life, their enjoyment of it. Since prudent means, among other things, “careful in regard to one’s own interests,” anyone pursuing their life along Objectivist lines will certainly be prudent.

In that light, I would like to present some very “prudish” ideas to conclude this discussion of Objectivist morality.

Some Very Prudish Ideas

If it’s doubtful, it’s dirty.

Suppose one is about to eat dinner, and noticing something odd about their plate, picks it up to examine it. “What are you doing, dear?” his wife asks. “I’m trying to determined if this plate is clean or dirty?” he says. “If it’s doubtful, it’s dirty,” his wife wisely replies. Almost no one would choose to eat off a dirty plate, and would always do the “prudent,” thing. It might not be dirty, but what’s the point in taking a chance that it isn’t, if it is and one gets sick from using it?

In almost every other area of life today, the suggestion that one ought to be, “prudent,” is met with scorn, and anyone who suggests it is often rewarded by being called “old fashioned,” or, “puritanical.”

But is it puritanical to suggest one make wise choices? What is prudence really?

Prudence means choosing wisely, it means shunning rashness and whim, it means not risking more than the prize is worth, it means living and choosing rationally and objectively, not yielding to just any urge, desire, or passion. Prudence means considering the consequences of one’s choices and actions, it means taking the long view and not yielding to every immediate impulse. Prudence means knowing one is responsible for one’s choices and making certain one only makes those one is willing to bear the responsibility for. It means having an integrated life with a chosen order and purpose, not a disintegrated one consisting mostly of meeting emergencies and avoiding trouble. It means living like an Objectivist.

There is a more serious aspect to this, “doubtful is dirty,” concept, one which no Objectivist can ignore. An Objectivist seeks to be ruthlessly virtuous, allowing no compromise in principle or truth. When a position or a practice is questionable, if the integrity of a position or the honesty of a practice is not certain, an Objectivist rejects it. To say, “I don’t know that it’s wrong, so there is nothing wrong with doing it,” or, “I can’t be sure anyone will be cheated by this, so it is OK to do it,” is an equivocation. It means one is willing to do wrong and to cheat people so long as one is not sure they are doing wrong or cheating. An Objectivist is never willing to do wrong or cheat people, and will avoid every possibility of doing either. To base any choice on ignorance is irrational. There are plenty of things we know are right and our moral choices must be based on those.

There is another name for this radically-objective ruthlessly-honest “lifestyle.” It’s called decency.

Some things you only get to do once.

There is a first time for everything we do in life, but we only get to do anything for the first time once, and some things we only get to do once, ever. In most cases, we will only ever get to attend any particular grade in school once (especially today). We only get to graduate from highschool once. Each birthday is a once-in-a-lifetime event. We only get our first drivers licence once. Our first date, our first prom, our first job only occur once. We only have our first baby once, although every each child’s birth is a once-in-a-lifetime event.

Whether we make something special out of these once-in-a-lifetime occasions or not, their significance is never lost on us. We almost always remember those one-time and first-time events, because they almost always mark significant steps or turning points in our life. All those firsts are beginnings of new phases or aspects of our lives which affect us for as long as we live.

Virginity used to be one of those things that was held in high regard, because there was significance in the event that ended one state and began a more important one. It is true, religion played a role in earlier views of the importance of virginity, but with or without religion, most women knew, that not being a virgin anymore was not a trivial matter, or at least should not be, because it should be the beginning of something important enough to remain for the rest of their lives.

Of course, I know this is all old fashioned, and just about every young silly girl throws her virginity away on the first hormone addled adolescent that seeks it. Virginity doesn’t matter anymore, because what comes afterward matters even less. Not all young people have yet been reduced to this moral nihilism.

I know a young man who intends to remain a virgin until he is married. It has nothing to do with religion. His explanation is nothing short of heresy today. When you get through all the “likes,” “wows,” “mans,” (he is young), what he says amounts to this: “I’m very selfish and very particular and I know exactly what I want and don’t want, and when I get married, what I don’t want is used goods. I want to be in a position to demand what I want, and I figure if I am used goods I don’t have the right to demand my wife not be.”

Is this an individualist? Today, he certainly is. Is he moral? You bet! Does he have character? He’s willing to pay the price. Does he demand too much? No Objectivist could ask that. Should he be discouraged? Anyone who would discourage this young man, if I may borrow a quaint Christian image, ought to have a millstone hung around his neck and be dropped in the nearest deep pond.

There are plenty of candidates for “pond dropping” around today, including almost anyone associated with government education. They are all, apparently, competent to teach young people all about sex, and teach them all the words (except, possibly, words like virgin, abstinence, and “no”), and encouraging all children to have as much sex as they possibly can and the earlier the better. After all, it’s only sex. It’s no big deal. (I assume they base that opinion on their own sex lives.)

But, if it’s no big deal, what’s the hurry?

Well, it turns out, its not a big enough deal to get all, “up-tight” about, as they put it, but its certainly a big enough deal to require us to have the schools full of expensive “sex” experts to educate the children about it.

So it is a big deal after all, and if it is such a big deal, is it possible, maybe, we should give a little more thought to when that one-and-only first time ought to be, and with whom? The change it makes permanent, should the cause of that change be trivial?

There is someone watching you?

The religious sometimes make the point that one reason you cannot do wrong and get away with it is because there is always someone who sees everything you do, and “He” will not let you get away with it. Eventually, you will have to pay.

The religious are right. An Objectivist does not mean the same thing the religious do, but it is still a fact that someone knows everything you do. Your every thought is being observed and recorded. You cannot do wrong and get away with it.

That someone that sees and knows everything you do, even your most secret thoughts, is the one, in all the world, who is most important to you; it is yourself. You can fool your friends, your acquaintances, your family, even the whole world about what your real motives and your actual intentions are, but you cannot fool yourself. You can hide the things you do from others, but you cannot hide them from yourself. You always know who and what you really are, and you are always your most critical judge. You know if you do wrong, it is against yourself that you have done it, and you know you have done it.

Others may forgive you, and you may forgive others, but you can never forgive yourself, nor should you. It would be prudent to make sure your judge only ever sees you doing right.

‘Til Death Do Us Part

I mentioned that sex gets people into trouble; lots of people into lots of trouble. It is incredible that so many men and women who exhibit the extraordinary self-disciplined character necessary to accomplish heroic achievements in so many fields destroy their lives, their careers, their reputations, their health, or their ability to enjoy their lives, over this single, evidently, uncontrollable passion. That something meant for human enjoyment could be the cause of so many human disasters is both incredible and alarming.

At least, it ought to be alarming. While the evidence piles up that indiscriminate, irresponsible, “recreational,” sex has consequences which are not good, the educators, intellectuals, the media, and all popular “authorities” become increasingly less critical of any sexual excesses, treating even the most damaging of sexual activities as a joke or inevitable.

A casual look at the statistics for the last twenty years provides irrefutable evidence of the ever increasing carnage “runaway” sex has wreaked. Oddly, while this disaster has been mounting, during the very same period sex education has steadily increased; not even a correlation has been noticed by the experts, whose demand (at least by the “professional”educators) is for more sex education.

Well this little lesson is for free, and meant only for those who are concerned about their own selfish little lives and don’t really give a hoot if the entire rest of society wants to die in an orgy of irresponsibility.

There is one class of people for whom all the horrible statistics do not apply, the heterosexual monogamous.

Men and women who stay faithfully married and in love for life have the fewest sexual problems of any kind, the least disease (no STDs or AIDS for example), the least anxiety, and, if statistics mean anything, the most satisfying sex lives; and they live longer. But they also have the fewest psychological and social problems, their children are the most well adjusted, and, in their own opinion, they have lives which are the most satisfying, interesting, and the least disappointing.

“You mean married people don’t have any problems?” someone asks. Of course they have problems. The most consistent Objectivist that ever lived had problems. Even for objectivists, however, heterosexual married couples are the most successful.

Objectivism does not dictate how people must live their lives. Marriage is not for everyone, but for many, probably most, it is the way of life most likely to fit their nature and the requirements of it. One thing is certain. Those who choose it and are faithful to it have none of the problems with sex that spoils the lives of so many people.

In addition to the health advantages, both physical and psychological, the fact that there is more enjoyment of life, (which is, after all, the purpose of one’s life), and the fact that their children are both healthier, happier, and more likely to be successful themselves, there is one more advantage to marriage. One choosing that, “lifestyle,” does not have to question its normality, its morality, or its benevolence. The remaining question, is, no doubt, the most difficult—whom to marry?; but that is, at least, the only question that really needs to be answered, and discovering that answer can be a real adventure.

How To Be a Prude

Careful in regard to one’s own interests, is the definition of prudent. Have you decided the purpose of your life is your enjoyment of it, knowing you cannot fulfill that purpose unless you live an objectively rational and fully integrated life which conforms to all the requirements of your nature, both physiological and psychological? That is very prudent.

Now, there is one thing about prudence. Prudence is of value only to the individual in their own choices and their own actions. One’s prudence pertains only to them, not to others. I do not mean you are not to be prudent in your dealing with others, but that your prudent values and choices do not pertain to how others choose to live their lives. Prudence in all one’s choices and actions is wisdom, attempting to force or influence others to conform to your ideas of prudence, even if correct, is just being a, “prude,” in the worst sense. Besides, if you are really prudent, you will be so busy living your life you will not have time to tell others how to live theirs.

Morality is knowing why things are right or wrong and choosing the right and rejecting the wrong because one understands why they are right or wrong. Moral values provide the principles by which one judges what is right and wrong.

normal

ADJECTIVE: 1. Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern, level, or type; typical: normal room temperature; one’s normal weight; normal diplomatic relations. 2. Biology Functioning or occurring in a natural way; lacking observable abnormalities or deficiencies….

abnormal

ADJECTIVE: Not typical, usual, or regular; not normal; deviant.