blackdiamond

Right. And indeed I am surprised to meet women who do not fully desire to be dominated sexually, or indeed desiring to fall into the arms of a man, or seeing that as a more natural desire than a man desiring to fall in their arms, for instance. I'm glad I didn't bet my rent money on it! Look, this is not like a fight for dominance between the two. The sex is something they both want, and the woman is enjoying this experience of being dominated by someone whose tools are apparently designed for that. It's not like she feels "this is not fair, how come you get to dominate when you want to and I don't." She loves her position, it's natural, he's stronger, and she trusts him. There is a metaphysical difference here. Just to use a more extreme example of differences in strength, it would be like a dad playing a fight game with his child (only an example, not saying the woman is a child). The child can jump on top of the dad as he is down and they "wrestle" from that position, but we know that he is really still in control of this whole situation because of his superior strength. It is harder, though, for the child to just decide in what position they will next fall in as they fight. He can't do it without the father just basically leading himself into that position as he senses where the child wants him to go. This is the sense in which I used the word "permission" with respect to letting the woman take an apparent position of leadership in the act. She is still not really in control. Let's change Brandonk's quote from Atlas Shrugged and see if it sounds normal : "When [she] threw [him] down on the bed, their bodies met..." Now that would be an abnormal sentence in a realistic novel. Ok, finally we have different theories to compare. You believe that women act more scared and emotional (and even scream) in certain terrifying situations simply because society expects them to act that way? So, in an Objectivist society of independent thinkers, women would be act just like men in this regard? Or perhaps it is the men who will become like this?:

I wasn't talking about defining direction of relationship. I'm not sure I understand this. Would you classify Ayn Rand's statements on the issue as "Platonic essentialism?" (I'm not intimidating you with that question, I just want to be clear what you mean and how far it applies.)

Bluecherry, how could you take something that I just threw into parentheses (), a by-the-way statement on rape, as the basis for my entire definition of "sexuality and gender issues"? Perhaps you misunderstood the whole statement. The man "can still take over when he decides to" was referring to taking over (or taking back) the dominance being exercised by the woman during the act of sex; it was not referring to rape. To use my analogy again, it would be like the CEO taking back his seat after "permitting" the CFO to take it temporarily during a meeting. And by the way, there is a very good reason why rape of women by men is a common, daily occurrence while woman-on-man rape (especially one woman) requires some googling for you to find those instances when it did happen (if we can technically even call it that, given the physiology of the sexual organs). That was the only incidental point about rape. No one was talking about how to fix this problem. I was explaining what I think is the source of this very common feeling in women. Even on a non-sexual plane, a woman who has just been terrified or something (maybe by a bad dream or even something real) seems to appreciate being hugged and I think it helps a bit more if the hugger is male, and even more if it is the husband. I don't know many men who would have a desire to be hugged by anyone upon experiencing a terrifying dream, for example. It would be OK, but not really that helpful. [but I would be curious to know how you feel about that, Brandonk.] You can of course buy a gun for your protection as a woman, but this won't make much of a difference after meeting a killer in your dream or when you happen to see a dead body in your wardrobe, and so on. The reassuring hug of a naturally stronger being can be all it takes to make you feel secure and safe again from those ghastly killers that came in your nightmare! If you have a different explanation for why these kinds of desires exist in (most) women, I'd like to hear it so that we can compare the two theories.

Fetishes are irrational.

I was about to be surprised, until you wrote that last bit!

Firstly, Brandon, I must say it is refreshing to talk to a homosexual person who doesn't seem too sensitive when met with an opposing view. As for dominance in sex, I think that the man is definitely the dominant one (between man and woman); as you have agreed, his very body "speaks dominance." So, he is the one with the right tools for that job, basically. Even in those times when a woman is apparently dominating, she is really just being permitted. The man can still take over any time he decides to (which is why he can even rape a woman if she says "no"), something we can't reasonably say about the woman. This means that even when she appears to be dominating, he is still the one dominating; sort of the same way a CEO can allow his CFO to lead an executive meeting (while he is also present). It doesn't change anything. A woman, being the physically weaker being, has lived with a psychology that makes her appreciate the symbolic protection offered by being "in the arms of a man," even if momentarily. It's the strength embodied by the more muscular physiology of the man that makes her feel calm, safe, protected; a sense of assurance, a moment of relief at the fact that she now has a being that is strong joining her permanently. I really don't think it makes logical sense for a man to similarly yearn to be in "the arms of another man." Of course if you have an alternative formulation for the psychology of why you think women love to be in the arms of a man, I'll be glad to hear it, with an inclusion of how you think the same psychology works for a man who desires the same. Basically the way I've expressed it above.

Not to stir up anything, but this really sounds strange to me. A man can find "dominance" to be attractive? Your entire body as a man speaks dominance - that's the essential difference with the body of a woman. So, isn't it more logical to desire to express your own dominance, which means being attracted to someone whose body is structured to be dominated, ie the woman?

Just a small (but important) correction: he didn't say the pharmaceutical industry is feeding off all of us. He said "the rest of the world" are all feeding off us (i.e., benefiting from our pharmaceutical companies). And on a different note (not to you, Miovas): I don't see how what Beck says (and is saying here) is different from what Adam Smith would say. It may not be the best, philosophically, but look at what it has produced for those societies that tried to follow it even slightly. Adam Smith also believed that selflessness was the moral ideal but self interest was the necessary evil that produced all the goodies in the world. I can live with that.

They are definitely not noble.

I am personally inspired to aim for this prize. Does anyone know the price of a teleprompter?

Thank you.

I'm not sure that I've followed your argument here. If I've understood you correctly, you are saying "it is legally prohibited to initiate force against a human" logically/immediately follows from "it is immoral to initiate force against a human." Why then shouldn't "it is legally prohibited to torture cats" logically follow from "it is immoral to torture cats," going by that same simple derivation process? I seek clarification. [i do agree that it should not be illegal to torture your own cat, by the way, even if it is indeed immoral; I'm just wondering about the deduction above.]

As one matures in wisdom, I think one discovers that the most important thing in choosing one's associations or alliances is really their general sense of life rather than the specifics of each of their concrete ideas or beliefs. Do they approach the problems of life rationally? Do they have personal integrity? Do they value the magnificent achievements of science and architecture and (big) business, etc, in the free world? Are they passionate about life, and love? And so on. Their sense of life. Anyone who would like Yaron Brook enough to want him on his show - and in his magazine, by the way - would count as sufficiently rational in my books to deserve a pretty positive judgment. More power to Glenn Beck.

You seriously believe that soldiers who die in war mainly do so because they are not well-trained? You seriously believe anyone who would decide to destroy a tyrannical or evil force is irrational if this consciously involves him dying? A man who would drive into Hitler's house with bombs just before Hitler kills 6 million Jews would be considered irrational under your ethical system? Well, well. No further questions then.

1. So those soldiers who do "die at all," it is (likely) just because they are not "able and skilled enough"? 2. Also, I'm assuming you find irrational any tactical suicide mission in war: say you know that if you crash your plane into that nuclear weapon building, you will immediately win the war, and if you don't you are likely to lose. Would a suicide mission like that be irrational since you know you are dying?

Are you saying it would be irrational for you (or someone) to join the army? A soldier would rather die, if necessary, than live under the conquest/victory of a foreign evil state (even if there is a chance that one day the conquest will end). Do you find such a choice irrational?

You must begin by correcting this premise. It's simply not true. Existence without "any pleasure whatsoever, and [without enjoying] anything at all" is not existence as a human. It's even worse than existence as an animal. See DavidOdden's post above.

Before I read what you've pasted, I should ask: are you permitted to copy-paste their whole article somewhere else? Perhaps there's something they want to gain by requiring subscription to read their articles?

But also, I wonder if, when Google invents something that can enable one to remotely hear sounds that are very far (actually such instruments do exist), we would consider it incautious and unreasonable to sing in your own shower while demanding/expecting that your singing will not be broadcast on the internet?

I need to have a look at the patent details for the shower.

I don't think there's anything incautious about singing in your own yard without expecting that you're providing international radio entertainment.

True. But just because you don't mind a few passers-by listening to you singing does not mean that you also don't mind being thrust on this global "stage" for millions of people to hear you sing. Can they also make a (free) youtube video of you singing in your garden if they wish so that people can freely laugh at your terrible voice?

Sorry to barge in, but the word 'right' does occur in the sentence that was quoted (I'm not sure why you both seem to agree that it doesn't). The quoted sentence was: "However, if someone goes to pains to circumvent her reasonable attempts at safeguarding her privacy, then she would be right in complaining." Perhaps you missed its occurrence because you think its usage here is different from the concept of rights; but it is not. (I'm just trying to follow this interesting discussion; thanks).

That's a powerful speech, Dan. I've linked to your speech from my blog!

This is just completely false.