To further confuse matters, many of the words being used to describe these gender roles (words like "conqueror") have clear and precise definitions that don't seem to leave much room for equality. "Conquerer," for example, has to involve defeating, overcoming, subduing, etc. I can't possibly imagine how women being on the receiving end of all that can possibly make them "equal."
It isn't like a rape...which is a crime of power over those are unwilling and unable to physically resist you.
I believe Rand had a view that what was ideal was if a woman and a man had equal values. What made the sex act equal was that a woman chose to submit before the man. Just as the man ultimately CHOSE the woman as being valuable. Both choices are equal in the fact that they are made by rational actors. The sex act is just an expression.
You can't really have TWO agressors of equal strength at the same time. One is going to be more dominant even if it is only a matter of degrees. You kind of have to get the job done at some point.... (not to be crude or offensive). You also have some serious desire. Because sex IS mutual....that might mean taking matters into your own hands and adjusting your partner so it feels better. That is an example of a lot of things such as knowledge, communication about what feels good, assertiveness, and openness.
Roles can switch during the act of sex, obviously. A woman might indicate desire by intiating foreplay and end up totally sexually dominated (just one example).
There are some really strong women who could lay the smack down (and moreover would not hestitate in the least) who still want to be conquered. It doesn't mean that they want to kick in the man's testicles if he is forcefully sexual (as that would seriously kill the mood).
If a woman and a man have equal values and both have consented on a conceptual level (to a sexual relationship) then the physical level will be proportionally forceful to the degree of passion involved.
It isn't matter of one being "weaker." If you are going after the old and the infirm (the weaker) because you aren't good enough to pull down the young and strong...you are a predator.
Rand doesn't advocate predation as it is a form of being second hander-ish.
I believe Rand advocates that both partners are equal in their values, their rationality, and their dedication to those actions in tangible action.
You don't have to be equal in the physical sense to have a meaningful sexual relationship.
This is my interpretation of it...someone correct me if I'm wrong on any of these areas.
I AM quite new to Objectivism myself.
sorry for the double post