I think Peikoff once said that you don't necessarily have to love people with whom you have sex. Does this mean that it's not immoral to have friends with benefits according to Objectivism?
asked Feb 24 '12 at 00:29
To answer this question, you have to ask: "What is sex about?"
Is sex just a pleasurable pastime? No.
While, in early sexual life, getting sexual experience without being in love is perhaps of some value, this is to be weighed against the spiritual cost of attempting to separate the sex act from what it inherently expresses: the joy of living, and of being as close as possible to a particular person.
Having sex with a "friend" means you are limiting the spiritual closeness but still seeking the physical closeness. It's an attempt to separate the mind from the body; of limiting the soul's desire, while simulating great desire physically. It's dishonest.
Sex, properly, is an expression of your soul's desire.
You are better off trying to find someone you want to have meaningful sex with. Yes, there are contexts where a meaningful sexual connection can arise with only limited long-term potential (such as meeting a very nice person on a month-long vacation which must end), but seeking out limited-potential sexual relationships in one's daily life is a corruption of the sex act.
It's unclear if Peikoff said that as a statement of fact (it's true that you can have sex with someone you care nothing about) or he was making a moral statement.
Anyway, it is irrational to sacrifice valuable time that could be spent finding someone of value to love by spending it with people you do not value.
answered Feb 24 '12 at 03:15