Thoughts on homo, hetero and bisexuality

[intellectualammo]

OK, OK. Fine...not the best example then. Other way round then makes a better example I suppose.

It should only be the other way around, the woman worshipping the man, because when I used the concept "worshipped" before, I was referring to as Ayn Rand says "the essence of femininity is hero worship—the desire to look up to man." ...which can be found in that thread that I keep referring to.

Edited November 12, 2007 by intellectualammo

[Prometheus98876]

It should only be the other way around, the woman worshipping the man, because when I used the concept "worshipped" before, I was referring to as Ayn Rand says "the essence of femininity is hero worship—the desire to look up to man." ...which can be found in that thread that I keep referring to.

Ok, Ok. I know it should. Thank you for clearing that up, but I saw that on my own not long after making the mistake of wording it that way (though not by reading that thread).

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

We don't need to do things just because they are good for us. There are many things that are good for us, but we don't need, so you are going to need to make a better argument than that.

Actually, according to the Objectivist Ethics 101, we do need to do things that are good for us -- it's called being virtuous

Perhaps you are thinking about need in the sense a bare subsistence level of living, and that is all we "need," whereas everything else that is good for us is only a "want" instead of a "need." Objectivism rejects this attitude about values. Rationally speaking, all of our values -- insofar as they are actually beneficial to oneself -- are needs to be happy, and so one ought to pursue them ardently.

Perhaps that answers your question about my love invitation poem.

[intellectualammo]

I don't like the part in bold. It seems to be saying that such a women won't treat men, even ones that she considers to be of value, but not enough to be a lover, as a friend since "pal" is just a synonym for "friend". Why wouldn't she treat such men as friends?

I like the rest of what that says though.

Kane, I didn't even see your post here until now. I looked up the word myself and also tried to keep Rand's context as well. I'm thinking that she may have meant it as "one in the same" kind of sense.

pal

n : a close friend who accompanies his buddies in their

activities

A woman shouldn't be treated like one of the guys, because and especially if she is a properly feminine one, and she also shouldn't want to be treated like one of the guys, because she is such a woman. Just like a man would not want to be treated like one of the girls, at least masculine ones. Maybe what she said was meant in that sense. I am not exactly sure. It's really hard for me to put into words. Perhaps Inspector would be able to state it better than I. I just did not want your question to go unaddressed, since I'm curious about it now too. I want to make sure my understanding of it is correct too.

Edited November 13, 2007 by intellectualammo

[Inspector]

Actually, I think you've nailed it, Steve. Think of yourself taking your girl and her friends out to the mall for some shopping. Would you want to be "one of the girls" for a day, (i.e. getting pedicures with them, getting emotional about clothes shopping, etc) or would you consider that role embarrassing and emasculating? You don't have to be romantically interested in any of the other girls to need to be masculine.

It is the same with a properly feminine woman.

[DragonMaci]

Actually, according to the Objectivist Ethics 101, we do need to do things that are good for us -- it's called being virtuous

Yes, but we have a choice about which good things that are good for us that we do, with the obvious exception of the physical necessities like eating, sleeping, drinking water, and breathing. Well, and psychological ones.

Perhaps you are thinking about need in the sense a bare subsistence level of living

No, I mean we don't need it for a healthy mind. We can have a healthy mind without sex. Yes, our mind is healthier if we have sex, but that doesn't make sex a necessity. It is just a matter of degrees of mental health.

and that is all we "need," whereas everything else that is good for us is only a "want" instead of a "need." Objectivism rejects this attitude about values.

So do I. I mean, only what I said in the two paragraphs above this one.

Rationally speaking, all of our values -- insofar as they are actually beneficial to oneself -- are needs to be happy, and so one ought to pursue them ardently.

Yes, but as I we can choose which ones to do. In fact we have to choose since the finite time we have is not enough to pursue all values. We don't need values. We don't need particular ones, with the exception of physiological and psychological need.

Perhaps that answers your question about my love invitation poem.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think I mentioned your poem. I though I only commented on your statement that we need sex.

Kane, I didn't even see your post here until now.

That would be because it was not there when you looked before (my posts are on moderator preview and have been for months).

I looked up the word myself and also tried to keep Rand's context as well. I'm thinking that she may have meant it as "one in the same" kind of sense.

A woman shouldn't be treated like one of the guys, because and especially if she is a properly feminine one, and she also shouldn't want to be treated like one of the guys, because she is such a woman. Just like a man would not want to be treated like one of the girls, at least masculine ones. Maybe what she said was meant in that sense. I am not exactly sure. It's really hard for me to put into words. Perhaps Inspector would be able to state it better than I. I just did not want your question to go unaddressed, since I'm curious about it now too. I want to make sure my understanding of it is correct too.

I see nothing in the definition you gave that implies anything about treating a woman like a guy. "Buddy" doesn't presuppose treating a person like a guy. It presupposes treating them like a friend. Why wouldn't a woman want that with a guy? Friendship is a valueable relationship, and a gender-neutral one I'd think.

Actually, I think you've nailed it, Steve.

I don't think he did. As I said, nothing in that definition presupposes treating a woman like a man.

Think of yourself taking your girl and her friends out to the mall for some shopping. Would you want to be "one of the girls" for a day, (i.e. getting pedicures with them, getting emotional about clothes shopping, etc) or would you consider that role embarrassing and emasculating? You don't have to be romantically interested in any of the other girls to need to be masculine.

And you can do friendly things with women that are friends that aren't embarassing and emasculating, such as talk or play Scrabble.

It is the same with a properly feminine woman.

Just like a properly masculine friend can do non-embarrassing and non-emasculating things with women that are friends, women can do things with men that are friends that are not efiminite or embarassing, such as talk or dance.

[Inspector]

"Buddy" doesn't presuppose treating a person like a guy.

Yes it does. (I think the rest of your argument hinges on this point.)

[aequalsa]

I think the thing we're all dancing around putting our finger on here is that if someone does not love you back, they are intrinsically less attractive. For a man with a high self-esteem, who values himself and so can truly value others, the woman who does not "see" him like that and cannot or does not value him fully is less worthy for it.

A very excellent point, Charlotte. In love, people wish to be loved for the reasons they love themselves. If I express love for a woman based on my own scaffolding of her persona, at best it will produce for her a feeling of fraud.(assuming it's inaccurate and not something she just never realized about herself) Normally, people are aware of their own strengths and shortcomings. However, for someone else to recognize and properly evaluate someone else's strengths, it is necessary to possess them in some degree. For example, the more you possess virtues, the more acutely aware of them you will be in regard to other people.

Sadly, I've noticed that the opposite is also true. The more you lack a negative trait, the more difficult it is to see in others. A tendency to expect others to be like ourself is probably the root of that.

[aequalsa]

Is this psychological or biological?

There are quite a few studies that have found structural brain differences between hetero, homo and bi folks. Variations in hormone levels during gestation seem to be the cause rather then something genetic.

Lesbians, for example, tend to have hearing more similar to men and also are more likely to have the finger proportions common to higher levels of testosterone. Here is one, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m120...153/ai_20406301 but many more can be found.

I would call it a causal relationship rather the deterministic. Exceptions exist and people can act against their brain structure and chemistry to some extent.

[DragonMaci]

Yes it does. (I think the rest of your argument hinges on this point.)

Firstly, I have never known anyone to use the word "buddy" in that way. The people I heard use it meant "friend" and "friend" does not presuppose treating a person like a guy.

Secondly, the follwing two quoted paragraphs do not rest on whether or not buddy presupposes treating a person like a guy:

And you can do friendly things with women that are friends that aren't embarassing and emasculating, such as talk or play Scrabble.

Just like a properly masculine friend can do non-embarrassing and non-emasculating things with women that are friends, women can do things with men that are friends that are not efiminite or embarassing, such as talk or dance.

Sadly, I've noticed that the opposite is also true. The more you lack a negative trait, the more difficult it is to see in others. A tendency to expect others to be like ourself is probably the root of that.

Well, I don't know about other people, but I tend to assume they are not like me unless they prove otherwise given that people like myself are very rare.

[~Sophia~]

For a man with a high self-esteem, who values himself and so can truly value others, the woman who does not "see" him like that and cannot or does not value him fully is less worthy for it.

It may not be that they are blind. Lack of romantic interest maybe for example due to bad timing.

[aequalsa]

Well, I don't know about other people, but I tend to assume they are not like me unless they prove otherwise given that people like myself are very rare.

Do you mean to say that you are honest and always assume that others are dishonest? Or, You are just and always assume others are unjust?

Keep in mind that I meant that in regard to particular traits. Not about ourselves generally. Roark displayed this tendency when he continually tried to help Keating. It is something of an adjunct to a benevolent view of life.

It may not be that they are blind. Lack of romantic interest maybe for example due to bad timing.

I took that to mean "in the context of a relationship." Walking in a crowded mall I probably don't recognize a dozen women worthy of my affections.

[~Sophia~]

I took that to mean "in the context of a relationship." Walking in a crowded mall I probably don't recognize a dozen women worthy of my affections.

My assumption was a significant exposure.

[DragonMaci]

Do you mean to say that you are honest and always assume that others are dishonest? Or, You are just and always assume others are unjust?

No, I don't. I mainly mean in terms of how I think. Few people think like I do, even other members of this forum.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

It may not be that they are blind. Lack of romantic interest maybe for example due to bad timing.

I think the timing issue might be different for men than it is for women, even if they are both interested in getting into a relationship. For a woman, it seems that if they make a come on towards a particular man, then he had better make up his mind to pursue her rather quickly (before she gets done batting her eyes, for some women). For a man, her making a come on is just one more thing to consider about reality -- i.e. what to pursue, and when. I can't tell you how many women have come on to me, expecting me to make some sort of snap decision about whether to pursue her or not, only to find out that once I have decided Yes, she is no longer interested because I missed the window of opportunity.

But I haven't decided if this is rational, irrational, or just the way women are. Since the women is the value to be pursued, then I can understand her doing a come on to see if the man thinks she is worthy of being pursued according to how she projects herself (or her sense of life), but some women think that if he hasn't pursued her within that timing frame, then he isn't interested; and some of them are highly insulted by this. And she won't return his phone calls or emails if he has missed this window of opportunity. But, again, I don't know if this is qua female or qua immediate and irrational expectations prevalent in our culture, or what.

In this context, I love certain aspects of The Fountainhead. Roark pursues Dominique when he decides to do so, and not beforehand. Like that scene where Dominique breaks the marble in her fireplace (I think as an excuse to be with Roark), then he says it needs to be fixed, and he sends somebody else to fix it. For most women these days, there would be no more relationship after that. She gave him an opportunity, and he blew it. Likewise for the scene between Galt and Dagny in his house, where she is trying to seduce him, and he makes it backfire on her. Well, the opportunity was presented, and Galt blew it; at least according to most women these days.

So, though I have noticed this, I don't know if it is based on an irrational premise or not; or whether the women who act this way have low self-esteem and if the man doesn't respond right away, they are filled with self-doubt; or what. Or maybe some of them think that the man must have low self-esteem if he doesn't jump on it right away when offered.

It's a big mystery to me

[DragonMaci]

I think the timing issue might be different for men than it is for women...

Yes, I have seen this a lot as well. It is just as much a mystery to me as it is to you. Maybe one of the females on this forum could weight in on this issue? It'd be much appreciated.

On a side note, I am pretty much useless at telling whether or not a girl wants me to pursue her, so all I have to go on is whether or not I want to pursue her.

[Edit: Shortened Quoted Section - RB]

Edited November 13, 2007 by RationalBiker

[~Sophia~]

I think the timing issue might be different for men than it is for women...

I think you maybe right. A friend of mine just recently made an observation that women are much more aware of their mortality and thus much more aware of time passing by and after a certain point of not getting any younger and for those who want children and still don't have them, of their biological clock ticking. All of this creates a greater sense of urgency. He said that men live almost as if they were imortal - with a feeling that they always have time.

Another reason is that women perceive that, after some point (which due to the timing thing maybe shorter than what a man thinks is reasonable), as him not being excited enough about the prospect.

Edited November 13, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[aequalsa]

But I haven't decided if this is rational, irrational, or just the way women are. Since the women is the value to be pursued, then I can understand her doing a come on to see if the man thinks she is worthy of being pursued according to how she projects herself (or her sense of life), but some women think that if he hasn't pursued her within that timing frame, then he isn't interested; and some of them are highly insulted by this. And she won't return his phone calls or emails if he has missed this window of opportunity. But, again, I don't know if this is qua female or qua immediate and irrational expectations prevalent in our culture, or what.

I would suggest that the cause is that women generally are much worse at dealing with rejection then men. Most guys have been rejected 6 times by the time they get to their first junior high dance. Many women have never needed to ask a guy out at all since(many) guys do so much asking. So when they get forward enough to venture a display of interest their courage usually falters pretty quickly.

The reason it worked with Dominique was that she was acutely aware of her own value. Especially as it compared to the quarry worker's(roark's) value. He had no "right" to reject someone like her. Her high self esteem probably did not allow her to entertain the notion that his rejection had anything to do with a lack on her part. So rather then sadness, she reacted with anger and indignation, since obviously Roark was the one with the problem.

At least that's how I read it.

No, I don't. I mainly mean in terms of how I think. Few people think like I do, even other members of this forum.

That, I don't doubt.

[intellectualammo]

In this context, I love certain aspects of The Fountainhead. Roark pursues Dominique when he decides to do so, and not beforehand.

Yes! Nice identification, Thomas.

Like that scene where Dominique breaks the marble in her fireplace (I think as an excuse to be with Roark)[...]

Well, in the novel Rand says Dom "felt a desire to underscore the safety[of the house] by challenging it" - by having Roark come there, and so she broke the marble, as a reason to get him there, if he was willing or wanting to earn some extra money.

[~Sophia~]

I would suggest that the cause is that women generally are much worse at dealing with rejection then men. Most guys have been rejected 6 times by the time they get to their first junior high dance. Many women have never needed to ask a guy out at all since(many) guys do so much asking. So when they get forward enough to venture a display of interest their courage usually falters pretty quickly.

It is true that we don't have to do as much asking but today we are also not as fragile anymore. Women get rejected in the job maket without that affecting their ego (why would you assume the worst if you do have all of the necessary credentials and experience?). There maybe all kinds of reasons why you did not land a job. Best thing is to conclude: not a good match and move on. Same thing on a romantic front. Often, not all of the circumstances are known to us. And in romance there are some subjective preferences taking place as well. Who knows - a man may have a sexual preference for red heads while I am a brunette. I certainly don't think that it is irrational.

I think it is always easier to deal with reality, whatever it brings, if you are in the known. Even if the answer is negative at least you know where you stand. So it is always better to ask a direct question instead of dropping hints while hoping that the other will respond. But that is how some women approach this issue and then the not knowing, drains them. It even results in resentment and there is no need for that.

Edited November 14, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[DragonMaci]

Who knows - a man may have a sexual preference for red heads while I am a brunette. I certainly don't think that it is irrational.

Personally, I think that is a silly reason to not choose a women. As much as I consider hair to be one of the main things on a woman that I am attracted to physcially, I certainly will not choose not to be sexually attracted to a woman just because of her hair colour. I do have preferences though of course.

[~Sophia~]

The reason it worked with Dominique was that she was acutely aware of her own value. Especially as it compared to the quarry worker's(roark's) value. He had no "right" to reject someone like her.

I don't think so

Their first meeting scene is a brilliant illustration of what we have been discussing in another thread, of what that masculine power is.

She has seen men working with drills and hammers many times before that. It was not as if she felt some kind of attraction to beefed up construction workers. Normally she would pass by and yet this time this particular man got her attention. Why?

Let's look at it from her perspective. Based on what she knew, he was below her, not in her league (what were the chances of him being what he was?), he should have been trilled that she even looked in this direction but that is not what happened. She was completely brought to perceptual level with her first perception being that of a slap on her face. A slap! His face was "an abstraction of strength made visible" (clearly this was not just physical strength). "She felt a convulsion of anger, of protest, of resistance - and of pleasure." His glance was that of an ownership. What was her next thought? What he would look like naked.

(this would have worked the same had he been a successful businessman or intellectual but the fact that he was not made so, in this scene, helped to illustrate this concept much better - without his non-gender specific values clouding it.)

That is what made him stand out. She did not feel any kind of power. Eventhough he was only a quarry worker - he could reject her. It is a feeling of humility on her part. Notice that she did not express any kind of Yes at that point either.

Ahh, and the reason it worked with Dominique was because she did not perceived him to be easily replacable.

Edited November 14, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[softwareNerd]

The way I read that scene, it is not an illustration of a man in the process of figuring out whether he should pursue a woman. So, I don't think it works as an analogy (re: #65). Sending someone else was part of Roark's "courtship" of Dominique, not part of him having second thoughts about her.

Edited November 14, 2007 by softwareNerd

[~Sophia~]

The way I read that scene, it is not an illustration of a man in the process of figuring out whether he should pursue a woman. So, I don't think it works as an analogy (re: #65). Sending someone else was part of Roark's "courtship" or Dominique, not part of him having second thoughts about her.

Exactly, again showing her who had the power here.

[aequalsa]

It is true that we don't have to do as much asking but today we are also not as fragile anymore. Women get rejected in the job maket without that affecting their ego (why would you assume the worst if you do have all of the necessary credentials and experience?). There maybe all kinds of reasons why you did not land a job. Best thing is to conclude: not a good match and move on. Same thing on a romantic front. Often, not all of the circumstances are known to us. And in romance there are some subjective preferences taking place as well. Who knows - a man may have a sexual preference for red heads while I am a brunette. I certainly don't think that it is irrational.

I think it is always easier to deal with reality, whatever it brings, if you are in the known. Even if the answer is negative at least you know where you stand. So it is always better to ask a direct question instead of dropping hints while hoping that the other will respond. But that is how some women approach this issue and then the not knowing, drains them. It even results in resentment and there is no need for that.

I call bullshit. You may not be fragile in this regard. Most women are. A job is very different. Romantic rejection is much more whole bodied and dealing with the rejection of a job well does little to increase ones ability to handle romantic rejection well, despite apparent similarities.

Your reasoning regarding personal preferences and context as a way of not feeling uncomfortable with rejection I agree with completely.

The directness you mention, I have mixed feelings about. Sometimes(on the rare occasion that it actually works) not stating everything explicitly in the context of a relationship is more enjoyable. "I-was-wondering-whether-you-like-me-in-a-romantic-way?" or "Would-you-like-to-have-intercourse?"...Just kinda mood killers. Somethings are better when they are understood without words. The whole Roark/Dominique scene for example....On the downside...in current circumstances a little mis-que could land Roark in jail for date rape. So maybe you are right. Romance always becomes secondary to self-defense.

I don't think so

Their first meeting scene is a brilliant illustration of what we have been discussing in another thread, of what that masculine power is.

....

Ahh, and the reason it worked with Dominique was because she did not perceived him to be easily replacable.

I understand what you are saying and agree with it. I am not certain that it doesn't fit with what I said. Women are pretty complicated critters. She could very well be entertaining both notions simultaneously.