Lauren, speaking for myself I would consider that example to be casual. Sex is too profoundly important and valuable to be left to the chance of someone you barely know, 99.9% of the time. This is just about the most controversial topic I’ve ever seen among Objectivists, however, so the answers you’ll get on that will vary.

To me, that is the litmus test: context. At TNC, I just don’t see a reason. As long as my co-authors don’t turn this into a truck stop, I wouldn’t think less of them if they occasionally let one fly. Again, in context.

“the subjectivist accepts that we’re all filthy and low without value judgment, as if to say, ‘Yes, that’s life — it’s no big deal.’”

I’ll never forget a debate psychologist Albert Ellis had with Branden around 1967 where Ellis criticized Objectivists for making too big a deal about sex.

“Sex is fun,” declared Ellis, “like having watermelon at a picnic.” I remarked to Stephen who was sitting next to me, “Either poor Dr. Ellis is really missing something or I want to know where he gets his watermelon.”

That Victor Hugo story is pretty amazing! Was that casual sex? Yes. Did Victor Hugo have titanic self-esteem? Yes. What can I say? The dude was Victor Hugo.

What is casual to you? would having sex with someone that you find extremely attractive but don’t know well be casual? It would be a worthy value exchange for me, if I found the person compelling. Casual sex for me would be sex with someone that I neither know nor find attractive. Sex without lust and respect for the person would be casual for me, and it would make me feel ashamed, i think.

I’m just wondering, since I read a blog post of yours that congratulated Victor Hugo for his rumoured going off to have sex with a maid he just met.

In the sentence “Obama is a goddamn commie,” the word commie strikes me as the only objectionable one. I’ve spent many posts here and back on my other blog figuring out who Obama is. The jury is still out, as he has yet to be sworn in as President. He is a social metaphysician and a pragmatist. He grew up surrounded by communists, but so far he is acting like your average welfare state politician. If Obama is a commie, then so is Bush, who started the bailout mania, among his many miserable interventions in the economy.

Bitch and son-of-a-bitch are a mean words, but are they profanity? Bastard is no longer politically correct because it is inegalitarian to abuse people just for being born out of wedlock. These words seem all right to me, but I don’t know what Bill Brown thinks.

I curse politicians all the time. Is the argument being presented that profanity is wrong on *all* occasions. In certain contexts why wouldn’t it be proper to say that “Bush is a fu**ing idiot” or “Obama is God-Damn Commie” or “Pilosi is a power lusting b*tch”? I can see the point that this is non-intellectual and not proper for the intellectual realm. But not everything in life operates on that level.

Also, another thing I’m getting from this post is that the words “sh*t, fu*k” and some others are always wrong and never appropriate. That strikes me as rationalism. Dropping the f-bomb in certain contexts can be appropriate as I see it. Could someone answer me why that is not the case?

Profanities include obscenities and other attacks (“vulgarities”) on the sacred. As quoted in the article, Ayn Rand mentions obscene words as referring to sexual acts and body parts. I would add a third category, which is related to the second: excrement.

I can think of four examples of the latter that often appear in some publications–which I no longer read. They all deal with excretion. (What does that say about the psychology of the individuals who use them in writings?)

They are all four-letter words (appropriately short for the mentalities that use them). I would avoid all such profanities in public writing, except in special cases, as you did when quoting someone because it reveals the nature of his character.

P. S. The etymologies of “sacred”and “profane” offer examples, I think, of Ayn Rand’s point that religion has monopolized certain proper value concepts–such as “sacred.” See “Religion,” Ayn Rand Lexicon, p. 414.)