Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The Psycho-Epistemology of Sexuality, Part VI

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

By Dan Edge from The Edge of Reason,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Conclusions and Applications

This is part 6 of a 6-part essay on The Psycho-Epistemology of Sexuality. Parts 1 and 2 can be found here, part 3 is here, part 4 is here, and part 5 is here. In a few weeks, I will publish a revised and edited version of the entire paper.

Over the past few months, I have written and published 5 sections of an essay on the nature of sexuality. I started by noting that a psychologically healthy man experiences his sexuality as a value, though it is not fully understood why this is so. Some have argued that one cannot value sexuality because it is not objectively more valuable to be male or female. As I wrote in parts 2 and 3, I reject this argument on the grounds that one can legitimately value what I call individuating elements of self. One's distinguishing characteristics are integrated with objective values by the subconscious - which treats automatized physical motions, sense-perceptions, values, and judgments as related units.

In part 4, I argued that one's gender integrates a broad range of physical individuating elements of self, and that these elements are stressed when one perceives a member of the opposite sex. If my arguments from parts 1-4 hold, then I have justified the claim that one's sexuality is legitimately a value. This much is evident through introspection, but I believe I have identified part of the psycho-epistemological mechanism for how and why this is so.

Finally, in part 5, I explained the concept of psychological visibility, and I argued that one can experience psychological visibility and sexuality to the highest degree in a romantic love relationship. Psychological visibility and sexuality are closely related -- both are automatized responses to another consciousness that reflects an integration of values. Whether or not these two phenomena are species of some broader genus, I will leave for another paper.

Assuming all of this is true, then where does that leave us? For one, we can forever discard the notion that sexuality is a purely cultural phenomenon. It is proper for men to be masculine and for women to be feminine. Particular expressions of sexuality can be colored by cultural influences, but sexuality itself is based on physiology and objective values. Further, since it has been demonstrated that sexuality is a value, then it is a virtue to act to attain it. Exploring and cultivating one’s sexuality can greatly enhance his life. But how is this done? I will only suggest some answers here.

Since sexuality is dependent on physiology, I choose to start with the physical. Men can develop masculinity, and women femininity, by automatizing physical motions that are consonant with one’s distinctive physiology. Exercise is very important, for two reasons: 1) A healthy man has more reason to value his body and its distinguishing attributes, and 2) Different forms of exercise can help one automatize a distinctive, gender-specific form of motion. For the most part, men and woman who exercise not only look more sexually attractive, they also move in a more sexual way. They practice using their bodies, and they have automatized forms of motion that work for their body-types.

So to those men who have never had much luck with the ladies, my first question is: Do you exercise? Also: Have you tried different forms of exercise? Do you know how to dance? Why not?

An exercise like dance is ideal for cultivating sexuality because it often involves physically interacting with members of the opposite sex. If one is trying to develop masculine qualities, there is no better exercise than learning to move in rhythm with a woman’s body. This is excellent training for a variety of other activities. Martial arts, soccer, basketball, and other sports are also great forms of exercise. When a man has automatized physical expressions of masculine power, he becomes more confident –more comfortable in his own skin – and this is obvious to any woman who watches him move.

Regarding homosexuality, I believe my essay raises more questions than answers. Clearly, homosexual couples fall in love and experience a wonderful depth of psychological visibility. But do two men feel masculine when they make love to each other? Based on the arguments in my essay, the answer to this question may be “no.” If humans were asexual, there would be no such thing as masculinity or femininity. However, I cannot conclude anything on this point because so much of the evidence for my argument was gathered through introspection, and I am not gay. I simply don’t have enough information. I would be interested in feedback on this essay from homosexuals, particularly those involved in a healthy, long-term romance.

There are many more applications of my sexuality theory, which I will explore in future essays. For now, I am bringing this essay to a close. When I began, I was aiming to prove this claim:

The psychological experience of sexuality is rooted in one's positive evaluation of his sex as an integrated, individuating element of self -- and it is experienced to the fullest through psychological visibility in the context of a romantic love relationship.

The reader must decide for himself whether or not I have fully justified this thesis, but I believe I have laid the sufficient groundwork. I hope that my essay inspires others to embrace and cultivate their sexuality. I also hope that others will further develop this theory, fill in some blanks that I left, or develop a theory of their own. Psycho-epistemology is a wide-open field, with many developments and applications left undiscovered.

Thank you for reading.

--Dan Edge

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

147046075

View the full article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greetings,

A reader sent in some good questions about the last section of my essay. I'm pasting my response below:

----------------------

I appreciate your comments. You wrote:

"To rephrase, what is the logical necessity that binds the following two elements:

1) Valuing one's own sexuality (i.e., I like being a man)

2) Having a heightened awareness of your sexuality when perceiving someone from the opposite sex (i.e., I am attracted to this women because I feel a confident sense of sexual masculinity)."

The connection between these two elements can be observed through introspection, but there is also an epistemological principle that indicates a logical connection.

I believe that a man's distinctive sexuality is stressed in the presence of a woman in the same way that the distinguishing characteristic of a chair is stressed in the presence of a table. One cannot integrate a set of units until he is able to differentiate them from other entities. As I wrote in the essay, if man were asexual, then there would be no such thing masculinity or femininity. It is only the existence of two sexes that gives rise to gender-specific sexuality.

So why is man-ness continually stressed in the presence of women, while chair-ness in not continually stressed in the presence of tables? I can offer two reasons: 1) There are only two sexes, while there are many different types of furniture. When only two species exist for a given genus, it is natural to closely connect the two in the epistemological hierarchy. 2) I am a man, and I am not a chair. It is important to me to gather data about my own nature. If I perceive an entity that gives me an insight or reflection into my nature, I sit up and pay attention -- and my subconscious stands at the ready to integrate those perceptions and insights.

Your characterized my position this way:

"...the awareness of masculinity and femininity is heightened by the presence of the other."

I want to clarify a point here: my claim is that the awareness of masculinity and femininity is possible only if one has been in the presence of the other. A man on a desert island who had never seen a woman before would not know what it was like to feel distinctively masculine.

You ask another good question:

"How do you make a logical connection (not an empiric connection) that imposes a logical necessity upon a man to be masculine (or a woman to be feminine) and apply it across the board."

I do not claim that men must be masculine or women feminine by logical (or moral) necessity. Certainly it is not logically necessary, because non-masculine men exist. Nor do I believe that it is morally necessary. I know some effeminate, gay men who are perfectly moral.

That said, I hypothesize that a gay and/or effeminate man doesn’t experience masculinity in the same way that a straight man does. There is no differentia in the bedroom. Does this mean that mean that homosexuals are immoral? No. Does it mean that they cannot fall in love and experience a depth of psychological visibility? Does it mean that they miss out on one element of psychological visibility that is gender-specific? Possibly.

You wrote:

"Increasingly, men and women are engaged in very similar physical activities that give them very similar physical motions, appearance, and capabilities."

There are some instances where certain kinds of exercise can make a person look more like a member of the opposite sex (heavy power-lifting for women comes to mind), but this is unusual. In most cases, however, if a man and woman exercised in the same way, they would look and move completely different. Consider a man and woman who each run 5 miles per day. In 99% of cases, the man would look more masculine from such exercise and the woman more feminine. Cardiovascular exercise tends to cause one to lose fat, leaving his body in its natural shape. A man's natural shape is different from a woman's.

If there were an exercise that would make a man look more feminine (developing fleshy, fatty breasts for instance) or make a woman look masculine (shrinking the breasts), then I would not recommend it. Most people wouldn't do it.

--Dan Edge

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, as I have argued before, you argument for the value of "individuating elements of the self" is fundamentally flawed. Things that make you different, qua things that make you different, are valueless, except in a context where there actually is a risk of being mistaken for others (identical twins, for instance). Your argument is a convoluted defense of the "its good because its me" premise, and is wrong.

About "psychological visibility", there may be some worth to the concept but it looks darned second handed if presented as a "need" (which it obviously is not). Can't say I found your argument compelling there either.

The rest of the work falls on its own weight once "individuating elements of the self" is taken out. It looks like a big rationalization of something that "everyone 'knows' intuitively", instead of a body of knowledge built from unquestionable basics to complex integrations through clean and faultless logic. This is not an accusation of intellectual dishonesty or of willful evasion, just the impression the article caused in this reader.

I know you can take criticism Dan, so I hope the fact that this is not personal is clear. I do appreciate the fact that you worked hard to put your ideas "on paper" and construct a properly structured argument - that is worthy of respect even if we disagree.

Edited by mrocktor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, as I have argued before, you argument for the value of "individuating elements of the self" is fundamentally flawed. Things that make you different, qua things that make you different, are valueless, except in a context where there actually is a risk of being mistaken for others (identical twins, for instance). Your argument is a convoluted defense of the "its good because its me" premise, and is wrong.

I have accused Dan of this same attitude in another context, so I hope I endear myself when I defend him in this one.

Certainly "individuating elements of the self" are valueless in the context of their superiority over other hypothetical, non-existent elements. One takes what nature gives and doesn't complain. However, in the context of sexuality, they can be of immense (personal psychological) value - if man's life, and the happiness that makes it worth living, is the standard. One's individuality is a complex sum of traits, many of them shared by others. What makes them valuable is that you possess them. No matter how similar or different you are from those around you, you are still an individual and that's what makes them important. The context of sexuality is unique; it is perhaps the one area where a man and a woman's similarities and differences are celebrated simultaneously. So yes, if you're a man, it's good to be masculine, lest you be mistaken as feminine just the same as if you're moral, it's good to express that to you mate, lest you be mistaken as immoral.

Also, to be sexually attractive - that is, distinctly masculine or distinctly feminine - has to be earned, even if it is largely dependent upon genetics. It is earned by being maintained through exercise, hygeine, proper nutrition, etc. One could even make the argument that cosmetic surgery should be regarded in the same way because it costs money, which has to be earned. Aside from the fact that all of these attributes point to, ceritus paribus, a certain superiority in character (self-esteem and self-discipline specificially) among other potential mates, they also suggest a greater capacity to deliver sexual pleasure. Since attracting a mate means an enhancement of one's happiness, I fail to see how preserving and accentuating one's sexuality is not a vaue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What makes them valuable is that you possess them.

No, that does not make them valuable. You may feel attached to them, but they are not values. That is fundamental.

Also, to be sexually attractive

Now that certainly is a value, so you'll get no argument from me. :P

Edited by mrocktor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter,

Are your hands not a value to you? What about your voice? Or your penis? What if you did not have these things? If you feel attached to them, this may indicate that your self-conscious is responding to an automatized positive evaluation.

No offense taken or intended, as usual. Thanks for the feedback.

--Dan Edge

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter,

I think you may be missing my point because it's almost too obvious, on an almost metaphysical level. You agree that your hands, feet, voice, etc., are values. But you could not use them unless you possessed them. I don't think you can (psychologically) separate valuing your hands from valuing your hands. In some respects, you can abstract away and observe that hands, in general, are valuable. But one can only make this identification because his hands are a value. Does this make sense?

You are right, if it is not legitimate to value individuating elements of self, then my argument does not hold. However, I think I established this in parts 2 and 3 of my essay.

Thanks,

--Dan Edge

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correction on Post #2:

I asked the question, "Does it mean that [homosexuals] cannot fall in love and experience a depth of psychological visibility?" but I did not provide an answer. The answer is clearly "no."

--Dan Edge

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mrocktor,

If values are those things which promote your life, I can see why you would think that one's particular physical characteristics aren't values. They don't necessarily promote your life, rather they are your life. This is true, to a certain point. But as I said, the maintenance of those traits have to be earned. They are valuable in that they allow you to pursue future values such as a pain-free tomorrow, playing a sport, or attracting a mate. They are also a source of pride since they are a readily perceivable reminder of a past accomplishment.

So I should have specified that I meant physical characteristics that were objectively valuable. There are deaf people who, in a perverted desire to preserve their individuality, turn down surgery that would give them the ability to hear. This certainly doesn't make sense - it's pure subjectivism.

But in the context of sexuality, just because a man didn't choose to be a man, it isn't a subjective preference to value his physiology as an expression of his masculine personality any more than it is a subjective preference to develop a masculine personality in accordance with his physiology. When it comes to being sexually attractive - a task performed over a number of years - the two are distinct accomplishments. No psychologically healthy woman would be attracted to an extremely good looking man who behaved extremely feminine any more than she would be to an extremely unkempt man who behaved extrememly manly. The extent to which an individual does not value himself within the context of sex is the extent to which he behaves inconsistently (fluctuating back and forth in bed between a womanly desire to submit and a masculine desire to dominate) as well as the extent to which he ceases to resemble his masculinity (I'm speaking here to the point Dan made about exercise bringing out one's masculine traits).

Of course, we could debate the value or lack of value of one's masculinity or femininity outside of the context of sexuality, but then we would be debating it outside of reality. Since men and women are identical in every other respect, this is the only context in which it is appropriate. Just because values are not subjective, doesn't make them intrinsic. Suppose someone possess a heart which may not function at it's full capacity. The fact that his heart keeps him alive in most situations but fails him when running from a bear, does not make his valuing of his heart a subjective preference any more than woman's pride in her made up face. Should he not value his heart and make no effort to maintain it because he cannot run a marathon? Should the woman not value her appearance and make no effort to improve it because she isn't naturally beautiful?

If individuals don't recognize, and indeed feel, their individuality - down to every last detail about them - they make no effort to maintain it, let alone improve it. At the extreme end of this argument, they will lose it entirely. A pile of bones possess nothing special about it. It has no pulse, no beauty, and certainly no gender.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think you can (psychologically) separate valuing your hands from valuing your hands. In some respects, you can abstract away and observe that hands, in general, are valuable. But one can only make this identification because his hands are a value. Does this make sense?

It makes perfect sense, but does not support your point. Here you are comparing "having hands" to "not having hands", where for a valid comparison with sexuality you'd have to compare "having hands" with "having something just as good as hands, but different" - since we agree that there is nothing intrinsically better about being a man or being a woman.

If values are those things which promote your life, I can see why you would think that one's particular physical characteristics aren't values. They don't necessarily promote your life, rather they are your life.

No, thats not what I'm saying, though I understand your interpretation. I'm saying that many physical characteristics are values, because they do promote your life (in a myriad ways). But that those that don't are not values - even if they are exclusively your own. A corolary of this fact is that if two life promoting features are equally valuable, they are equally valuable (one of them does not become more valuable because you have it and not the other).

No psychologically healthy woman would be attracted to an extremely good looking man who behaved extremely feminine any more than she would be to an extremely unkempt man who behaved extrememly manly.

Really? That is a very powerful assertion, which demands very powerful evidence. And it demands a definition of feminine and manly (I suspect yours differs from mine). But that is not an argument I want to get into again, you can search these forums and find my ideas on the subject if you are interested.

Edited by mrocktor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mrocktor,

I think that Dan's "hands" analogy does hold (pun intended). It really is "hands or no hands" because it really is "sexual capacity" versus "no sexual capacity." It's not a question of whether or not it's more valuable to be a man or a woman. In fact, that's a ridiculous question. Instead, it's a matter of valuing a capacity for sexuality over not having a capacity for sexuality. I value my sexuality and since I am a man, that means masculinity. So I value my masculinity in turn.

Secondly, I agree that those physical characteristics which disable a person in some way are not values. I thought I made that clear in my last post using the example of the wilfully deaf people, but I'll elaborate. To further my analogy of the man with the heart ailment: no, he is not pleased that his heart is limited in some way and her would certainly act to have it improved if the opportunity presented itself, but that's not the point. What he does value about his heart is what it does do for him, despite it's shortcomings. If anything less than a perfectly healthy heart meant that it continuously released deadly poison into the bloodstream, you might have a point. But it doesn't, so you don't.

Finally, I don't understand your point about two equally valuable attributes being equally valuable. Do you mean if they were identical? If so, in the context of one person, that would be virtually impossible. I've never heard of anyone born with two heads or four hands.

If you mean in the context of more than one person - that is, yourself and another hypothetical, non-existent person - I don't think that the terms "more" or "less" even apply. My hands aren't more valuable to me than my non-existent hands, but neither are they less. They simply are what they are: they're my hands and so they're valuable. They may not be the best hands and they may not be the worst, but they're my hands and I do everything I can to maintain them. If you mean "equally valuable" in the context of sexuality; that I'm saying it's valuable to me to have a penis but it wouldn't be valuable to me to have a vagina, reread my first paragraph.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finally, I don't understand your point about two equally valuable attributes being equally valuable.

The point is that the value is sexuality, not masculinity or femininity (the particulars). Therefore, if a man is happy with the values he has and can achieve in that area, it makes absolutely no sense to "grow a beard or develop an interesting body scent", as I was once instructed to do in another less polite discussion about this issue.

"Manliness is a value because I'm a man" is not a rational stance, since it subjects the individual (that man, with his particular traits - whether you would consider them "masculine" or "feminine") to the collective ("men", your "template" for what masculinity is supposed to be).

I believe each individual should evaluate each of his or her traits, develop those that are valuable and suppress the ones that are not. There is no "package" of traits that is necessarily good or necessarily bad for a person based on their gender. You simply cannot ignore each individual's context and make blanket statements such as the one I indicated in my last post.

Edited by mrocktor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mrocktor, Are you saying that masculinity is an "optional value" or that it is not a value at all? An "optional value" is a value -- it is like a concrete form of some value. So, for instance, stamp collecting was a value to Rand, but she could have chosen some other forms of concrete value to achieve the same ends.

The point is that the value is sexuality, not masculinity or femininity (the particulars).
Similarly, I might say that I love roast beef -- it's a value to me. Someone else prefers roasted zucchini. You would not say, in this case, that it is food that is the value, not beef or zucchini; or would you?

I'm trying to understand what you're saying, by comparing it to those other examples.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mrocktor,

I'm glad we agree - the value is sexuality per se, not masculinity or femininity. I stated this just as clearly in my last post as you did in yours. But with that, said, sexuality apart from masculinity for a male or femininity for a female is a meaningless concept. The only way for a man to express his sexuality is for him to express his masculinity. However, this does not mean, as you say I say, to grow a beard and get a job as a lumberjack. It simply means to desire to acquire - or, if you have already done so, to value - those physical traits which accentuate the differences between a man and a woman. This is part of valuing sex and wanting the best out of it.

Having physical strength is not a prerequisite for having sex, but it certainly makes it more enjoyable. Without it you can't throw your woman around. Just like, for a woman, having limberness is not necessary to be sexual, but it certainly makes it alot better. This does not mean that if you are not the strongest man in the world you are not masculine or if you aren't the most limber woman you aren't feminine any more than if you have a sub-par heart it isn't beating. What if does mean, however, is that if your woman is stronger than you, you aren't masculine or if your man is more limber than you, you aren't feminine. This is the social element of sex - what you call "the collective." I don't know how you can seperate this element. Sexuality is a social activity and so "masculinity" and "femininity" are relative terms - relative not from man to man, but between men and women.

But just because a trait is commonly valued by two or more people does not automatically make it subjective any more than it automatically makes it objective. What makes it objective is what it does to further an individual's life - in this case, your partners physique as well as your own makes sex more enjoyable. Rebelling against something something that is popular, simply because it is popular, in an attempt to preserve you "individuality" makes as much sense as choosing to remain deaf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mrocktor,

I'm glad we agree - the value is sexuality per se, not masculinity or femininity. I stated this just as clearly in my last post as you did in yours. But with that, said, sexuality apart from masculinity for a male or femininity for a female is a meaningless concept. The only way for a man to express his sexuality is for him to express his masculinity. However, this does not mean, as you say I say, to grow a beard and get a job as a lumberjack. It simply means to desire to acquire - or, if you have already done so, to value - those physical traits which accentuate the differences between a man and a woman. This is part of valuing sex and wanting the best out of it.

Having physical strength is not a prerequisite for having sex, but it certainly makes it more enjoyable. Without it you can't throw your woman around. Just like, for a woman, having limberness is not necessary to be sexual, but it certainly makes it alot better. This does not mean that if you are not the strongest man in the world you are not masculine or if you aren't the most limber woman you aren't feminine any more than if you have a sub-par heart it isn't beating. What if does mean, however, is that if your woman is stronger than you, you aren't masculine or if your man is more limber than you, you aren't feminine. This is the social element of sex - what you call "the collective." I don't know how you can seperate this element. Sexuality is a social activity and so "masculinity" and "femininity" are relative terms - relative not from man to man, but between men and women.

But just because a trait is commonly valued by two or more people does not automatically make it subjective any more than it automatically makes it objective. What makes it objective is what it does to further an individual's life - in this case, your partners physique as well as your own makes sex more enjoyable. Rebelling against something something that is popular, simply because it is popular, in an attempt to preserve you "individuality" makes as much sense as choosing to remain deaf.

Very good post. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, I don't even consider "masculinity" and "femininity" as they are usually defined (traits typical of males, or females) to be valid, useful concepts. My beef is not with sexuality as a value (it is) but with drawing up this silly blueprint of "manlyness" and "femininity" and holding it as an absolute. Needless to say, I consider seeking traits merely because they are traditionally related to your gender to be foolish (at best).

Frankly, the modern man in his pressed business suit, with his Armani perfume, groomed hair and smooth cheek would be considered a complete pansy just about anywhere 1000 years ago. But women seem to be attracted to him just fine.

I got into a lengthy debate about this on previous threads, which I don't intend to revsit at the moment. Sorry for not engaging you, I do realize you are sincerely interested in discussing the matter - its just that I'm not (for now). I guess once I'm no longer "burned out" with regard to discussing this, I'll write an article of my own (following Dan's example) restating my understanding and opening it to debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...