The Wrath Posted February 17, 2006 Report Share Posted February 17, 2006 Returning to the actual topic again . . . It will never help matters if you just tell her she's pretty. You also have to show her that you think she's pretty. My theory is that men have that dopey stunned expression for a reason, they just use it wrong: it's not appropriate when you forgot to get milk on the way home. It IS appropriate when your special lady gets all decked out. Just stand there and stare at her for a while, it's really the best compliment. Oh and for the love of money don't tell her she looks "fine". She knows she looks "fine". She would not leave the house if she didn't look "fine". At the very least, she looks "nice" or even better "really nice!", graduating up to the dopey stare mentioned above. Well, living 1500 miles apart, it's about as much I can do to just tell her. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMeganSnow Posted February 17, 2006 Report Share Posted February 17, 2006 "Would you send me some new pictures soon please?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix Posted February 17, 2006 Report Share Posted February 17, 2006 (edited) *Felix joins Hunterrose in practicing dopey stoned expression as he is already able to remember the milk* Seriously, from my experience the way you look at a woman can make a lot of difference. It's a good tip. Edited February 17, 2006 by Felix Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Styles2112 Posted February 17, 2006 Report Share Posted February 17, 2006 Sometimes, I find that just smiling at my wife puts her in a better mood. So, I'd add that use the dopey stunned looked and follow it with a sincere smile. I haven't known a woman to not love that yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Posted February 17, 2006 Report Share Posted February 17, 2006 Milk huh? What about bringin' home the bacon? You don't want to forget to do that either Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wrath Posted February 17, 2006 Report Share Posted February 17, 2006 It's amazing how much different conversations about sex are on this board as opposed to other message boards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMeganSnow Posted February 17, 2006 Report Share Posted February 17, 2006 That sounds like an interesting comparision. Care to elaborate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wrath Posted February 17, 2006 Report Share Posted February 17, 2006 Go to practically any other message board and read threads about sex. They will always be about personal sexual experiences, usually described with very crass language. In here, on the other hand, we discuss the metaphysics of sexual intercourse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Styles2112 Posted February 17, 2006 Report Share Posted February 17, 2006 Well, I suspect our posts would be trashed if we started talking like that. that's problaby reason number one....reason number two - the thread didn't really seem to have to do with the physical act of sex (or maybe I missed something along the line.) Anyways, I think it's a very interesting thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted February 18, 2006 Report Share Posted February 18, 2006 Well, I suspect our posts would be trashed if we started talking like that. You bet! that's problaby reason number one I would hope that reason number one is that most posters on this forum are intelligent and decent people who don't feel a need to gain "self-esteem" from boasting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMeganSnow Posted February 18, 2006 Report Share Posted February 18, 2006 (edited) In here, on the other hand, we discuss the metaphysics of sexual intercourse. Metaphysics? We've got an entire philosophy of sex. Observe: The masculine role is that he is the actor. The feminine role is that she is the thing acted upon. You don't hear a man speaking of being taken by a woman. A man's penis, and his whole body, is not a passive instrument. Metaphysics Based strictly upon my own experience, the major difference I've noticed between men and women as it comes to desire, at least, is that . . . Epistemology No rational man is attracted - on any meaningful level - to a woman he has little or no respect for. It means nothing to conquer some drunken spring break tramp, or even indulge in a mutual, anonymous encounter performed just to "scratch an itch." Ethics However, whenever she mentions something about how she doesn't think she's pretty enough, I first try to assure her that she is. After this, I tell her that it isn't her physical appearance that I fell in love with, but that it was that big, sexy brain of hers. To, objectifying a woman means caring about her body (specifically what's between her legs) and nothing else. Politics Now, it is true that we should evaluate all of a woman's attributes, including her character, her consciousness, her mind--not just "what's between her legs." But we are still talking of evaluation based on sense perception ("objectification"), not some mystic "knowledge" of her "inner" "beauty." Esthetics Now, while this is somewhat of a joke, I think it's notable that most people have theories, at least, about the derivative branches of this sexual philosophy (ethics, politics, esthetics), and the epistemology is pretty much just "reason" for Objectivists, (i.e. it's already covered in general Objectivism), most of the metaphysical ideas that people have are little better than wild imaginings injected with a lot of "shoulds" instead of simply describing what "is". How to rectify this situation? Edited February 18, 2006 by JMeganSnow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix Posted February 18, 2006 Report Share Posted February 18, 2006 We've got an entire philosophy of sex. Okay, I tried to resist, but I just had to post it: Metaphysics: Sex exists Epistemology: Sex is man's only means to understand reality. Ethics: Sex is an end in itself. Politics: I will never have sex for the sake of another one, nor force another one to have sex for me. Aesthetics: Sex as it can and should be. ...most of the metaphysical ideas that people have are little better than wild imaginings injected with a lot of "shoulds" instead of simply describing what "is". How to rectify this situation? Interesting. So the goal is to describe what sex is, what its function in a human life is to then derive a "theory of proper sex". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMeganSnow Posted February 19, 2006 Report Share Posted February 19, 2006 Epistemology: Sex is man's only means to understand reality. Say instead "reason is man's only means to understand sex" and you've got it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wrath Posted February 19, 2006 Report Share Posted February 19, 2006 Politics: I will never have sex for the sake of another one, nor force another one to have sex for me. So what about when a wife "has a headache" but does the deed just to make her man happy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix Posted February 19, 2006 Report Share Posted February 19, 2006 So what about when a wife "has a headache" but does the deed just to make her man happy? Well, I guess then she has committed the moral crime of sex-sacrifice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMeganSnow Posted February 20, 2006 Report Share Posted February 20, 2006 Only if her husband's happiness has less value to her than whatever else she was planning to do during that time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Posted February 20, 2006 Report Share Posted February 20, 2006 Only if her husband's happiness has less value to her than whatever else she was planning to do during that time. like sleeping perhaps ? J/k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarah of Taken In Hand Posted February 26, 2006 Report Share Posted February 26, 2006 Miss Rand was not a feminist. She knew that being valued ("objectified," "dominated," "overcome") by a man was an honor for a woman. I agree. It is. I remember reading an essay by Ayn Rand, in which she wrote that she would hate not to be objectified in sex. At least, that is my memory of what she said. It might have been in The Voice of Reason in an essay against a Papal encyclical, but I don't have that book to check. Can anyone help me find that quote? Either she said or, or I thought it when I read what she wrote. On the subject of whether or not Dominique was raped by Roark, it was not rape in the sense of immoral non-consensual sex. It was something she wanted, craved, and was completely thrilled by. It might be argued, as it has been to me, that it is a mistake to use the word 'rape' to refer to what Roark did, but sometimes one has to use a powerful word to express the power and intensity of the interaction described. Sarah Cavendish Taken In Hand Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted February 26, 2006 Report Share Posted February 26, 2006 Welcome to the forum, Sarah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMeganSnow Posted February 26, 2006 Report Share Posted February 26, 2006 This quote? "Of Living Death", The Voice of Reason, pgs 56-57 "I cannot conceive of a rational woman who does not want to be precisely an instrument of her husband's selfish enjoyment. I cannot conceive of what would have to be the mental state of a woman who could desire or accept the position of having a husband who does not derive any selfish enjoyment from sleeping with her. I cannot conceive of anyone, male or female, capable of believing that sexual enjoyment would destroy a husband's love and respect for his wife--but regarding her as a brood mare and himself as a stud, would cause him to love and respect her." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted February 27, 2006 Report Share Posted February 27, 2006 On the subject of whether or not Dominique was raped by Roark, it was not rape in the sense of immoral non-consensual sex. It just occurred to me that much of the confusion probably comes from the fact that we have a single word for the crime of rape and the mere action of raping--that is, physically overcoming--a woman. So, for those who are still confused, perhaps the following clarification could help: The crime of rape consists of raping a woman who does not want you. Roard did not do this. If you know that the woman wants you to rape her, then it is not a crime to do so; in fact, it's a gift. This is what Roark did. BTW, welcome aboard Objectivism Online, Sarah! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nastasya Filippovna Posted April 6, 2006 Report Share Posted April 6, 2006 Sorry for bringing up an old topic, but I feel alot of negativity against feminists in here. I have always considered myself a "feminist", but my idea of what it means to be one is apparently not the majority. I do not hate beautiful women, in fact I am one. I just hate it when women won't stand up for themself, and letting something hold them back just because they are females. I hate it when they give in to what society expects of them (though people, it is hard with so much pressure). I am in no way sexist, I just want everyone to be seen as equal. And no men and women aren't the same biologically, but does this give men the right to oppress women?The similarites are far greater than those that separate us. And rape is wrong, and it can mentally damaging for alot of women that it happens to. Someone invading you like isn't respectful or natural. And I don't really see the scene in the Fountainhead as rape, just he pursuing her forcefully. It was about sex; rape is not about sex, rapists have said this themselves. I just felt I had to say something, calling myself a feminist and all, I didn't want everyone to think I was physco extreme man-hating one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Styles2112 Posted April 7, 2006 Report Share Posted April 7, 2006 It just occurred to me that much of the confusion probably comes from the fact that we have a single word for the crime of rape and the mere action of raping--that is, physically overcoming--a woman. So, for those who are still confused, perhaps the following clarification could help: The crime of rape consists of raping a woman who does not want you. Roard did not do this. If you know that the woman wants you to rape her, then it is not a crime to do so; in fact, it's a gift. This is what Roark did. BTW, welcome aboard Objectivism Online, Sarah! You can correct me if I'm wrong, but I've always understood Rape to ALWAYS be the crime. I.e. Rape is always a forced sex act on an unwilling person. I would have thought the term for Roark would be Ravish. An equally powerful word, but doesn't point as much to criminal intent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liriodendron Tulipifera Posted April 7, 2006 Report Share Posted April 7, 2006 hey Nastasya, you may want to swing over to Forum 4 Ayn Rand Fans - there is a good thread there about this topic of women having so-called 'rape fantasies' which I think you may find enlightening. http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/index.php?s...hl=rape+fantasy By the way, I agree with you and I think most of the people here do. Sorry mods, if I am not supposed to be advertising another Objectivist site. But it's a good thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted April 7, 2006 Report Share Posted April 7, 2006 Sorry mods, if I am not supposed to be advertising another Objectivist site. But it's a good thread.You owe us a link-back Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.