Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Stargirl

Regulars
  • Content Count

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Stargirl

  • Rank
    Novice
  • Birthday 08/06/1989

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Canada
  • State (US/Canadian)
    BritishColumbia
  • Real Name
    Brittany
  • Copyright
    Public Domain

Contact Methods

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  • Location
    BC, Canada
  1. I have dated a number of men whom were all extremely intelligent, rational, and respectable people. However, within the first few weeks or months of dating, I always withdrew and found that the initial desire I had harbored for them would dissipate. I would become bored and frustrated in the relationship despite there being nothing apparently wrong. For a long time I thought that I was just not fit for a long-term relationship, and that I would always grow bored and distant with the other person. Now that I am with and fiercely passionate about my current partner, (and have been for almost a year) It has become clear to me what it was that turned me off so much about all those other 'great-catches'. The common thread was that they all seemed to look-up to me and developed a nurturing/sweet role that I find to be feminine and thus not at all sexually attractive. It occurs to me that this femininity plays a huge role in the 'nice-guy syndrome' where the most nurturing, kind, and women-admiring men are often seen to finish last in relationships with the women they desire. Ayn Rand's view of feminine psychology fits completely with my own understanding of myself, and hers are the only ideas I have read of the sort that seem entirely rational. The fact is, in order for me to sustain a long-term romantic relationship with a man, the perfect balance must be one of our unique identities- including our individual genders- the masculine and the feminine. As much as I may have thought I wanted a man to worship and nurture me, that was simply not the case. I worship the masculine, and am completely worthy (not inferior) to that which I look up to and desire. It takes a secure and rational person to realize that psychological gender differences are neither threatening, nor do they necessarily imply superiority of either sex. The genders are quite complimentary, physically as well as psychologically.
  2. I realize that some parents are emotionally (and physically) distant with their little ones, sometimes to the point of alienation. Particularly while the child is young, I think it is important to set positive examples for living life progressively, particularly in human relationships. I do not think I would consider my child 'the public'. (Again, I am not defending the parents in the topic article, but just expanding on why I don't necessarily think parental intimacy around children is immoral.) I do not take a stagnant statement position on this idea, like 'Children must never see sex' or 'Sex near children is immoral', including 'sex infront of your kids is good for them.' There are so many variables written off by statements like those.
  3. When I have children of my own, I intend for them to be raised in an envronment where they can be exposed to healthy relationships, particularly relationships of sexual intimacy. This does not mean I intend to have sex infront of my children, this does not mean I will gather the kids into the bedroom to watch it like a show, because a show sex is not a spectacle. I intend to point out that children being exposed to sex or intimacy between their parents is not a bad thing. I see no reason to exclude a child from being aware of the relations between his parents. Parents are prominent figures in a child's life, so who better to set a positive example of a meaningful human relationship? For instance, my own parents were affectionate with one another in front of my sister and I. I never saw them have sex, but I felt an incredible sense of love, and was aware of intimacy in our family's home. My parents rarely displayed affection to each other in public, at least not in the same open way they would do it at home. This would serve as an early example of what privacy means. The key here, is that I think children especially should be aware of the intimacy and postive relationship of their parents. For a child to be excluded from exposure to any kind of meaningful intimacy between their parents could make it more difficult to form their own relationships, emtionally and physically. A positive environment is not necessary of course, as adults we can all come to terms with what our own parents lack, and make our own decisions on how govern our selves. I do know that personally I felt an incredible sense of strength and closeness in my family as a child, largely because my parents did not attempt to alienate their children from being a valuable part of their lives.
  4. Yes I see that I have totally strayed from the specific example, I don't have alot of information from the article at hand, but it sounds to me like the mother and her partner may very well have been portraying sex as an ordinary and trivial act. So, now I distinguish that what I am advocating is not necessarily in support of this couples manner of raising their child.
  5. A lesson in The Cunning Use of Tags I do not think desire for privacy necessarily indicates shame or filth. I do not think a child witnessing their parents have sexual intercourse makes it inherently immoral. I think your tagging of my view of sex, as far as this aspect it concerned, is sloppy in its intent, and entirely incorrect. I understand that tags are convenient and necessary, however, it is disordered to call 'hippie', toss in an excerpt about hard-core porn being disgusting (a description I wholly agree with), in order to take control of a topic with a heavy tone of false coherency. I do not intend to have sex in throngs of hippie-kin like an hog hopping around on public display. I do intend to point out that it is not inherently self-deprecating to be seen by other humans while having sex. The intimacy I know of is far greater than physical aloneness with my partner.
  6. And another way to consider it: Did Dominique's nude statue make her intimacy with Roarke less meaningful? (It does not.)
  7. You are correct, if the partners were bothered by the presence of their child, the intercourse would not be enjoyable; the discomfort would compromise the sexual intimacy. I mean to state that I do not think that one must necessarily be bothered. The distinction is in the act itself, the minds and integrity of the individuals having sex. I do not think that other humans witnessing my partner and I engaged in sexual intercourse makes it inherently any less celebratory or meaningful. I do not think that sex mandates a veil of secrecy to be celebratory and meaningful. It is enjoying making love in the darkest of nights, and then on the brightest of mornings. In the most private room, and then in the most open landscape. For instance, I think it would be beautiful and uplifting to watch two humans such as Howard Roarke and Dominique have sexual intercourse. If the act is beautiful, why must witnessing it be trashy? Much like watching the beauty of a man discussing his design of a skyscraper, or a woman speaking of her plans to create a great railroad; I think the celebration of life in the manner of creating a child is one of the most meaningful acts humans can engage in, and to witness it is both uplifting and inspiring. Herein lies the distinction. If the act is trashy, secondhand, and guilty, there is no celebration, and anyone watching would be treated to the same display of human shame as the ones engaged in it. The distinction is isolating the celebration from degredation. I distinguish between putting on a cheap show for second-hand pleasure, from the engagement in sexual intimacy with my partner in the most meaningful and uplifting manner possible. I see no inherent immorality in my child witnessing the celebration of life between my partner and I.
  8. So if my child were to see this celebration between myself and their father, would it make it less of a celebration for myself and my partner? I do not think so, particularly because the witness in question is our child. After all, who would be of more value to my partner and I, than our child? I do not think witnessing parents having intercourse is perverted, shameful, or degrading to anyone. I do not think sex needs to be shrouded in secrect in order to be celebratory. If I was having sex with a man, I do not think the act would be any less meaningful if my child happened to see it. In fact I am curious as to how it could be anything less than beneficial to see parents engaging in such intimacy. I am not saying I plan on regularly having sex infront of my children, although I do not think it is a negative thing for a child to see it taking place. It only becomes an 'ew gross' factor when the taboo takes hold. I do not think it needs to be shameful. Guilt, shame, and degradation have no place in association with how highly I revere human intimacy and sexual intercourse.
  9. So if I take my children to a museum to have a look around, does that trivialize history? If a child sees their parents having intercourse, how is it trivialized? What special and crucial signifigance has been removed?
  10. Wow, I am surprised so many people think a child seeing sex take place is this awful thing. Since when does sex need to be hidden from children, as though it were some guilty secretive act of old people? Sex is natural, alot of humans choose to participate, and it is mostly non-violent and consentual. If it is both non-violent and consentual, what is the harm in children seeing their parents participate? I would say that attaching 'shame' to sex is potentially more harmful to a child than the possibility of them viewing their parents have intercourse. I mean, it was the same act that created the child in the first place. Our culture also tends to view waste-excretion a private act. Should it be illegal for parents to allow their child to catch them on the toilet? I say, absolutely not. In fact, I do not think either is embarrasing or shameful. I see no criminality or immorality in children understanding or freely viewing non-violent, consentual human intercourse. What is it about sex that poisons a child's mind or inhibits their development?
  11. I was watching Home Improvement the other night. It was the episode where Tim is jealous of his wife spending time with a male member of her book club, so he decides to try and join. After the meeting (at which he made a fool of himself, knowing nothing of literature), when the ladies were leaving, Tim asked them which book they would be reading the following week. One of the ladies said The Fountainhead, and Tim exclaimed, "Oh yay, plumbing!"
  12. I have always pictured someone who looks like the model Giselle Bunchen (however you spell her name), to play Dominique or Dagny. Angelina Jolie carries herself well, but I don't know if I can picture her in either roles; perhaps due to her own political beliefs.
×
×
  • Create New...