Archive for July, 2011


by Jason Stotts

I’m going to be on vacation in Colorado with the wife and her family for the next 10 days or so and we’re going to be staying at a cabin in the mountains where internet and even cell reception is scarce.  During that time I’ll be taking a vacation from blogging as well and Erosophia will be silent.  Please feel free to continue to send me news items you want me to respond to or to ask me question via formspring and I’ll get to them when I get back.  While I’m on vacation, I’m going to be focussing exclusively on the book and I’m hoping to make some serious progress on it.

I am also going to be meeting with the Front Range Objectivism (FRO) group on Friday July 29th for a dinner and conversation afterwards.  If you’re in the Colorado area (the dinner is in Boulder), I invite you to reach out to FRO for details and come to the dinner.

Automatically Generated Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts

Didn’t go to ATLOSCon?

by Jason Stotts

The organizers of ATLOSCon would like to know why you didn’t attend, if you didn’t.  They’re asking that you please take their short survey so that they can learn more about what people want in a regional Objectivist conference.  The survey is short and you’ll be helping to make ATLOSCon better for next year:

If you’re still interested in getting a copy of my speech that I delivered at ATLOSCon, I’m selling them directly for $10 (e-mail me at Jason(at) or you can get it on Amazon for only $5.99.

Automatically Generated Related Posts:

Christian Terrorism in Norway

by Jason Stotts

I think all too often we think that the only religion we have to worry about is Islam and its penchant for killing infidels and women.  Well, any belief system that is based on the irrationality of faith poses a threat to human life and just because they’ve been docile for many decades, does not mean that they’re not still dangerous.  I’m talking, of course, of christianity – a religion of peace that through history has killed more people than any other group through its various crusades, inquisitions, and correcting of heretics.   Anyone who is fundamentally irrational (i.e. religious) is dangerous and they must be treated as such.

OSLO — The Norwegian man charged Saturday with a pair of attacks in Oslo that killed at least 92 people left behind a detailed manifesto outlining his preparations and calling for a Christian war to defend Europe against the threat of Muslim domination, according to Norwegian and American officials familiar with the investigation. (NYT)

Religious war is inevitable and the only way to protect ourselves is to work to end religion and replace its irrationality with reason and a rational approach to life and existence.

Automatically Generated Related Posts:

No More “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

by Jason Stotts

One oft he very few things that I think Obama has done right since he’s been in office is to work to repeal the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy of discriminating against non-heterosexuals in the military.  Yesterday, he officially signed the certification that will completely end DADT in 60 days.

WASHINGTON — President Obama formally certified on Friday that the American military is ready for the repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy as Pentagon officials said that nearly two million service members had been trained in preparation for gay men and women serving openly in their ranks. (NYT)

I want to take this opportunity to say thank you to all of our LGBT soldiers who fought for our country, even though they couldn’t be themselves doing it. I’m happy that you can now serve openly and I think the military, and ultimately the country as a whole, will be better for it.

Automatically Generated Related Posts:

Formspring: When is Sex Appropriate?

by Jason Stotts

I’ve received another question from Formspring, this one about when it’s appropriate to have sex.

When is it an appropriate time in a relationship to have sex? How do you know when one should? I have very little experience in this arena (I’m a 20 year old male in college), and don’t know how to apply Objectivist sexual ethics in this arena. Thanks!

The most important thing to remember is that for Objectivism the over-arching principle guiding all of ethics is for an individual agent to act to maximize his happiness, taken in the rich sense of eudaimonia as originally elaborated by Aristotle, over the long term.  Obviously sex and love play a very important role in what it is to live a good human life and thus we must treat love and sex as important values.  In fact, I think love and sex are necessary conditions for happiness.

Some questions to consider are:

1. How long have you been dating?

By spending lots of time with a person and being close to them, you learn who they truly are.  The longer you have been dating, the better you should know someone.  If it’s very early in a relationship and you don’t know each other well, especially at your age and probable experience level, it’s best to wait until you get to know each other better.  Having sex too early may cause the relationship to fall apart if it doesn’t go well or you might find that you’re not able to be your true sexual self in front of your partner and you don’t know your partner well enough.

2. Is the relationship based on shared values or just pleasant association?

Your relationship will be in a position to have sex sooner if it’s based on real values than if it’s based on simple pleasant association, assuming in the latter case that you actually want a relationship.  The more your relationship is based on shared values, the stronger it will be.

3. Do you actually care about each other?

This sounds like a strange question at first, but if you don’t care about your partner for herself, then you should wait to have sex.  Sex is selfish.  In a good and healthy relationship you care about your partner for their sake because they are a value in your life and make your life better, but you still care about them for their own sake as well.  This is important as some people take the stance that “of course I care about X, she is my girlfriend (or whatever),” but you should wish your partner well even if they were not your partner.  To put it another way, you shouldn’t care for your partner only because they’re your partner, but because they’re a good person and deserve good things.

4.  Are you virgins or do you have some experience with sex?

If you’re both virgins, you need to wait until you each feel comfortable with the idea of having sex and of having sex with each other.  If you’ve both had sex with multiple people, you will not need to wait long at all.  Knowledge of sex and what you like and need sexually makes it much easier to have sex with new partners.

I’d also like to add that virginity is no value for a rational person as it simply means a state of ignorance and inexperience with sex, which we Objectivists think is an important value.

5. Are you going to jump right to coitus or are you going to work your way up to it?

Going from only having kissed directly to penis-in-vagina (or butt) sex is a bad idea.  Actually, it’s a terrible idea at your age and experience level, if you care about your relationship.  You need to work your way up to vaginal intercourse together, learning about each stage and enjoying it for the pleasure it brings you both.  That is, you need to master oral, not because you simply need to postpone vaginal sex, but because you’ll learn about yourselves, each other, your likes and dislikes related to sex, and important skills.  Once you master each stage, then you move to the next one and keep going until you’re good at vaginal sex too.  Of course, there’re lots of side roads and detours and the like, but I think a good basic trajectory is manual – oral – sex.  I’m not saying that it’s obligatory to follow this trajectory, but it can really help you to gain knowledge and experience, and comfort with your partner, so that when you do decide to have intercourse, you’ll be ready.

A couple of final thoughts: I’m of the opinion that we shouldn’t be too rationalistic about sex and that it is better to learn from experience than to try to guess what you may like or not.  I think it is better to err on the side of trying new (safe) things and then judging whether you like them than to attempt to a priori deduce this.  This shouldn’t be taken as permission for promiscuity, but it does mean that I think you shouldn’t reserve sex for the one person you hope to marry.  In fact, I think that pre-marital sex is morally obligatory, as going into a relationship as serious as marriage without knowing if you’re compatible in one of the most important aspects of marriage is beyond foolhardy.

Since you’ve taken the trouble to write me, I’m going to offer you a free copy of my recent speech “Sexual Ethics and Objectivism.”  Just e-mail me at Jason(at) and I’ll send you a copy.  (Please include the date you submitted your question for verification.)


Do you have questions for me?  Feel free to submit them via Formspring or by e-mailing me directly at Jason(at)

Automatically Generated Related Posts:

Bisexual Invisibility and Coming Out Bi

by Jason Stotts

In a recent column, Dan Savage argues that more bisexuals should come out of the closet so that they can be out in the open as part of society and can live their lives with integrity as who they really are.  I fully agree with Dan about this point.  All too many people think that bisexuals don’t exist because they (apparently) don’t know any bisexuals.

Not only would it be great if more bisexuals were out to their partners, it would be great if more bisexuals in opposite-sex relationships were out to their friends, families, and coworkers. More out bisexuals would mean less of that bisexual invisibility that bisexuals are always complaining about. If more bisexuals were out, more straight people would know they actually know and love sexual minorities, which would lead to less anti-LGBT bigotry generally, which would be better for everyone.

I firmly think people of all kinds should be open about who they are and what they like and that they should live their lives with integrity.  If more swingers were open about being swingers, people would understand it better and would realize how many people are swingers.  If more Objectivists were open about their Objectivism, people would realize how many of us there are and that many reasonable and intelligent people are Objectivists.

I think we should take a lesson from homosexuals and how much support and freedom they have won for themselves through being open about their homosexuality.  Sure, it’s not without some hardship and some people’s lives were made worse, or tragically even lost, but now homosexuality is largely accepted.  This same tactic of being visible and proud of who you are will work for any minority and I think bisexuals should be the next out of the closet.


Update: I wrote this with adults who are in stable situations in mind and I do not advocate one sacrificing himself for a cause.  I think it would be very beneficial for more people to come out as bisexual, but they shouldn’t risk their happiness or life to do so.

Automatically Generated Related Posts:

Sex Tips #11: Adapt and Overcome

by Jason Stotts

When we were young and imagined what sex might be like some day, I’m sure we all imagined that it would go perfectly. That things would just magically happen and everything would just work. However, those of us who have had sex before know that sometimes things don’t go as planned. Sometimes there are distractions or interruptions. Sometimes there is equipment failure.  Sometimes the condom breaks or slips off. Sometimes our partner wants something different. In short, sometimes things happen that make sex not go as planned and then we are confronted with the decision of how to deal with the problem.  I say: adapt and overcome.

Things not happening according to plan can cause us to have a bad experience, but it doesn’t necessarily have to.  If we keep an open mind about our sexual experiences and don’t try to force them to conform to specific patterns, then we will likely have a much better time.  Sex should not be formulaic: it should not always start with kissing, then oral, then vaginal penetration, and then cuddling.  Sometimes it can start without kissing.  Sometimes you can go right from kissing to coitus.  Sometimes you can skip whole steps or add new things in.  In short, we should not go into a sexual encounter with an idea of how it must be and any deviation from that will ruin the experience.  We should keep an open mind during sexual encounters.  We should adapt to each new sexual situation and overcome any problems that might come up.

Keeping an open mind and adapting to changes and overcoming problems will make our sex lives much better and reduce the disappointment that we might otherwise feel.

Automatically Generated Related Posts:

Polyamory is Wrong!

by Jason Stotts

I saw this come across the twitter earlier today (via @kellyelmore79) and several people were kind enough to forward it to me as well. I think it’s one of the best things I’ve seen in awhile.

I share this etymological worry myself.  As I said in “On Polysexuality“:

What I am interested in analyzing is the practice of having multiple sexual partners.  […] I will begin by naming it “polysexuality” combining the Greek poly- (more, many) with the Latin sexus (sex) and meaning by it the condition of having multiple, or more than one, sexual partners during any one time period (not necessarily simultaneously) or of having sex with people besides a person’s partner while he is in a relationship.  As much as I hate to combine Greek and Latin, the standard nomenclature regarding sexuality has already been bastardized and, so, for clarity’s sake in English, I will follow suit.  The problem is that there is no sufficient word in the English language to deal with the phenomenon that we are analyzing and so I must introduce this new word to carry the cognitive weight of the following analysis.  Furthermore, in contrast to “polysexual,” I will introduce the word “monosexual,” the Greek mono- (one), as meaning sex with only one person during any time period or, to put it another way, a person who does not have sex with anyone besides his partner when he is in a relationship.

Unfortunately, English is lacking in some pretty important words regarding love and sexuality.

Furthermore, the word “poly-philia” (from the shirt) more properly means that one has a lot of friends than it means something like multiple lovers.  The greek philia is the love of a friend, not the romantic concept of love that we have in our culture and which is absent from Greek culture.

Ultimately, I think that in these matters we are either going to have to bite the etymological bullet and accept the bastardized words or have issues being understood.

Automatically Generated Related Posts: