writeby

"Vernacular is all well and good, but I don't think it's precise or accurate to say the girl "conquered" the boy, notwithstanding the fact that rational relationships between men and women are consensual. " I'm here using "conquer" to mean win him. And a woman most assuredly wins a man (up to a point) when she gets him to pursue her - just as he has, to the same extent, won her by getting her to want him to pursue her. She has won his interest and he, hers. It is a "victory" for both of them, dramatized, if you will, by the sexuality of each. In the end, the woman's submission to the man is an acknowledgement of his victory over her; and the man's pursuit of the woman is his acknowledgement of her victory over him. This is birds & bees stuff, guys. None of that means, obviously (I'd thought), that there is anything coercive or deceitful or fraudulent about any of it. It's the dance of courtship. Sheesh. Has the culture become so emotionally repressed no one any longer understands just what wooing entails? (See AS for Galt's wooing of Dagny and vice versa, e.g., "Wear the blue one next time. It'll look just as beautiful." Analyze that.) I wasn't aware this was a technical philosophical dissection of the psychology of romantic love. I'd thought, as the thread's title seems to suggest, that this was simply "miscellaneous" subjects of interest, which would involve a general discussion. I approached as if it were Good Copy - not ITOE. Indeed, there is much similar in this discussion with the indignant responses to that light and gay story that AR elicited when she tried to point out that that is exactly what all of the philosophical discussions, etc. are about: living in such a world with a sense of lightness and gayety. As for substituting surrender for submit, see TF & AS for cites of this very term and their context. As an aside, as pointed out by Dr. P. in his memoirs of 30 years with AR, Frank O'Connor was a man of great integrity but lacked AR's intellectual genius. This was the main motivation for AR having an affair with (that b******) Branden. In the end, though, integrity did win out. That said, I'd also like to point out that it was Mr. O'Connor who "saved TF," who spent the night talking with AR and *helping* her to think through some very dark feelings that she was having regarding the state of the then current culture (& in the late 30's, early 40's, that state was pretty dismal). Miss Rand did not have to "teach" Mr. O'Connor the fundamentals about reason, egoism and Individualism. He knew them when they met. Please see Who Is Ayn Rand for further reading on this point. From the tenor of this discussion, I can tell I'm out of my depth. My view of romantic relationships is that they are indeed rational, but that includes emotional, i.e., when there is sufficient value, both fundamental and optional, to include complimentary differences, between a man & a woman, the woman indeed wishes to be conquered by the guy, the guy does indeed chase her until she catches him and when she does, has indeed conquered him - as he has her. Nothing could be more consensual - or sensual - than that. As for what you're trying to work out as to what constitutes indiscriminate sex, what constitutes a proper sexual partner and a genuine romantic love partner (one thing you're leaving out is simple physical chemistry, i.e., individualized, optional physical values that causes one to respond amorously rather than just sexually), etc. - good luck with all that.

writeby: what do you mean by submission is conquest, etc.? In the vernacular: A boy chases a girl until she catches him. Call it conquest by attraction. A woman will only submit to a man 1) who pursues her & 2) whom she wants to pursue her, whom she has "conquered" by getting him to pursue her in the first palce -- the pursuit as much the woman's idea as the man's. In my experience, sometimes more. Sometimes the guy doesn't even know he's paying suit. ;o)

Perhaps contextualizing the operative meaning of masculinity & femininity would help. If memory serves, the operative context is, metaphorically speaking, the bedroom. My observations of women and men, in that context, is that a man pursues, which is at once also an admission of being "conquered." A woman submits, which is at once also an act of "conquest." But what of masculinity & femininity *outside* the bedroom? Here the context is pschology, as Dr. Peikoff emphatically informed me at an Objectivist Conference in 1988. Is there a feminine way of coming at things and a masculine way? Without making this a dichotomy, could one say, essentially, that men -- in the main -- emphasize theory, women, practice? As support for this POV, recall that in UO Dr. P mentions that from his experience, men tend to be rationalists; women empiricists. On the other hand, consider woman's role historically, which I recognize could have been formed by prohibitions and prejudices. For instance, women in Victorian England became "Angels of the hearth and home" -- keepers, if you will, of morality and educators of the young, e.g., "the hand that rocks the cradle rules the Empire." Men, in this historical scenario, are the ones going out and dealing with the world in "practice." This is, I think, more than simple male patronizing. Thus, here women are the theorizers, men the practioners. These observations are merely me thinking aloud, so feel free to shoot any and all of this down. I have always found the topic of identifying the fundamental nature of masculinity & femininity to be fascinating. And at 52 I will admit to still not having a firm, objective definition of either. In the words of Jerry Seinfeld: "When it comes to women, men are certain of only one thing: We want women. How do we get women? Oh, well, that we don't know. That's why we wind up yelling at women from constructiuons sites or honking at them in our cars...There is one thing I do know, though. Men who do that have run out of ideas."

Celebration does not, I think, require any kind of specific activity. I do think it requires, though, that the activity be out of the ordinary of one's everyday routine - to recognize an accomplishment that's also out of the ordinary. The method of celebration may be great or small - from decorating your entire home, inside and out (as some do during Xmas) to sticking a candle in a cupcake, lighting it and blowing it out. I think the key is that the action or detail must be a kind of exception to one's everyday behavior, an exception-value, if you will, that heightens one's awareness of living and which underscores one's pleasure in being alive at that particular moment because of one's achievement. If "love is exception making" - then so should be celebration, great or small, for celebration is a form of expressing one's love of one's values.

(Apologies to the young woman - Rana(?) - to whom I sent the following. I apparently sent an email when I wanted to submit a post. ) Hello All, This is an introduction of sorts. My name's Steven Brockerman. I just discovered this forum. A sign of the cultural critical mass Objectivism is reaching I think. Just wanted to respond to the notion that men, as *friends,* are typically competitive w/ each other, "joke" insult each other, etc. Picture that sort of juvenile behavior between Rearden & Frisco. I can't; nor can I picture it in my own friendships. As for the main thread, there's a big difference between argument & persuasion. On particular issues, debate can be, well, sexy. Nonetheless, if what you're looking for is an adult romantic relationship, the last thing you want to play is teacher to her student in something as fundamental as philosophy. I love the myth of Pygmalion; but it's a myth for a reason. Picture Galt with Cheryl. Better to find a woman your equal than to try and make one your equal - an impossibility, which you'll see if you re-read that line a few times. It can never work. Getting "wowed" by a woman is half the fun. ;o) And nothing wows like brains equal to your own in a romantic context (along with, of course, character & beauty).