The question is: Why is enjoying sex a value we want to keep, while enjoying punishing is a value we don’t want to keep?
I’m not sure who “we” is in that sentence… for example, I suspect a lot of people don’t endorse enjoying sex and do endorse enjoying punishment… so I’ll speak for myself here.
Value is complex. One of the components to the value equation for me seems to have to do with wanting other people to do what they want to do. Another has to do with wanting sex. A third has to do with wanting rule-violators to be punished.
Call those Va, Vs, and Vp, respectively.
Mutually consensual sex satisfies Va and Vs and is neutral with respect to Vp.
Nonconsensual sex satisfies Vs and antisatisfies Va and Vp. (That is, it causes other people to do things they actively don’t want to do, and it inflicts punishment on people who didn’t break any rules.)
Punishing criminals satisfies Vp, antisatisfies Va, and is neutral with respect to Vs.
Of course, all of the above are sweeping generalizations and have many many exceptions. Again, I’m talking about myself here. And there are many many many more components to value, and they all enter into this calculation. But adopting a toy world for a second and assuming that these are the only components and they are equally weighted and binary, then it follows that:
Mutually consensual sex = (Va + Vs) >
Punishing criminals = (Vp—Va) >
Nonconsensual sex = (Vs—Va -Vp)
Further, having values in conflict is uncomfortable.
So I’d expect that I’d find it easier to endorse the first of those (where all the value components are positive or neutral), and that I’d be more willing to edit my value system to resolve the latter two. Or to edit my environment so that the conflict-causing situations don’t arise.
Or, as is far more common in the real world, edit my perceptions of my environment so that I’m not aware of those conflicts. For example, if I convince myself that someone I raped did something to deserve it, then nonconsensual sex becomes (Vs + Vp—Va). If I further convince myself that they aren’t really people, then it becomes (Vs + Vp). That’s much more comfortable.
Or I can convince myself that they actually wanted it, in which case it becomes (Vs + Va), which is also more comfortable.
Etc.
So I think my answer to your question is: some people experience more conflict in their value systems around specific instances of punishment than around specific instances of sex; I expect those people to want to keep the value of sex more than they want to keep the value of punishment. For other people, the reverse is true; I expect them to want the reverse.
I’m not sure who “we” is in that sentence… for example, I suspect a lot of people don’t endorse enjoying sex and do endorse enjoying punishment… so I’ll speak for myself here.
Value is complex. One of the components to the value equation for me seems to have to do with wanting other people to do what they want to do. Another has to do with wanting sex. A third has to do with wanting rule-violators to be punished.
Call those Va, Vs, and Vp, respectively.
Mutually consensual sex satisfies Va and Vs and is neutral with respect to Vp.
Nonconsensual sex satisfies Vs and antisatisfies Va and Vp. (That is, it causes other people to do things they actively don’t want to do, and it inflicts punishment on people who didn’t break any rules.)
Punishing criminals satisfies Vp, antisatisfies Va, and is neutral with respect to Vs.
Of course, all of the above are sweeping generalizations and have many many exceptions. Again, I’m talking about myself here. And there are many many many more components to value, and they all enter into this calculation. But adopting a toy world for a second and assuming that these are the only components and they are equally weighted and binary, then it follows that:
Mutually consensual sex = (Va + Vs) > Punishing criminals = (Vp—Va) > Nonconsensual sex = (Vs—Va -Vp)
Further, having values in conflict is uncomfortable.
So I’d expect that I’d find it easier to endorse the first of those (where all the value components are positive or neutral), and that I’d be more willing to edit my value system to resolve the latter two. Or to edit my environment so that the conflict-causing situations don’t arise.
Or, as is far more common in the real world, edit my perceptions of my environment so that I’m not aware of those conflicts. For example, if I convince myself that someone I raped did something to deserve it, then nonconsensual sex becomes (Vs + Vp—Va). If I further convince myself that they aren’t really people, then it becomes (Vs + Vp). That’s much more comfortable.
Or I can convince myself that they actually wanted it, in which case it becomes (Vs + Va), which is also more comfortable.
Etc.
So I think my answer to your question is: some people experience more conflict in their value systems around specific instances of punishment than around specific instances of sex; I expect those people to want to keep the value of sex more than they want to keep the value of punishment. For other people, the reverse is true; I expect them to want the reverse.