Sexual Interactions And Values

[JMeganSnow]

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?

This isn't Feminism, it's Individualism. Objectivists don't think that men should oppress women; we're struggling to understand what the psychological implications of the metaphysical differences between the sexes are. Capital-F Feminists think that oppressing women is in men's nature and thus the government (or someone) has to intervene via physical force to prevent men from destroying civilization wholesale. Don't believe me? Read some modern feminist literature. If you believe that men are capable of NOT oppressing women, then you're not a feminist. If men were in a situation similar to the women you describe, would you support them? Then what you're really against is oppression, not men. Feminists aren't for women, they're against men.

Is it really beneficial to women to see them as helpless victims that require government assistance merely to keep up with men? Personally, I have more self-esteem than that. There's not a man on the planet capable of oppressing me without government assistance, and that roadblock has been steamrolled over so many times that it's a complete non-issue. As for the perennial victims out there that really CAN'T manage their own lives: grow a spine. Because in the end, that's the only solution. No one can take advantage of you without your consent.

The questions (on this forum, at least) on the topic of masculinity/femininity tend to boil down to something like this:

1. The sexes are metaphysically different.

2. One should always act in a way that reflects metaphysical realities.

3. Then, how should one act based upon metaphysical sexual differences?

The problem's very easy to define, but VERY difficult to apply, not the least in part because most of the information we have is purely circumstantial and does not, yet, have a definite causal connection to underly it and back it up. Personally, my views are these: do what you enjoy in bed, provided you enjoy it because it is good for you, and not because you're seeking to escape from responsibility, abuse yourself, evading reality, etc. If the things you enjoy are damaging you somehow (which you can discover through introspection and observation), then you need to correct them, but if you can't detect any damage then don't worry about whether you're doing things the right way according to someone else's standards.

[Inspector]

I'll second what JMeganSnow said. Nastasya Filippovna, "Feminism" is meaningless outside of the context of the man-hating psychos. Feminism is the ideology of man-hating psychos. You've simply mis-identified the term as meaning something that it does not.

The solution to your confusion is simple: don't call yourself a feminist at all.

[Nastasya Filippovna]

I see what you are saying. I'm more of an equalist than a feminist. I guess I got used to calling myself that because I used to hate men(don't anymore, I'm over that)

[Starblade]

I think the basis for the terms masculine and feminine come from the roles of man and woman, not the other way around.

It has been stated somewhere that it is the man who acts on the woman, not the other way around. Though, this is not really based on in depth judgment, but on a superficial perception. Both man and woman are sexually complex and hypothetically, they can both initiate or refuse a sex act, though the means by which they do this may or may not be esoteric.

Of course, it can be argued that since sex is sensualistic, the perception of that which makes sex IS what matters, not some statistical analysis on the capabilities of both male and female to initiate and refuse a sex act. In this sense and others, masculine and feminine gain their respective identities.

PS: Forgive me if I'm not exactly following the thread to-the-mark. I have some perceptual difficulties.

[Illuminaughty]

Judging by the sexual interactions of Rand's main characters, one could infer that she was aroused by being dominated by men. I would love to hear the various opinions that I am sure exist about what this says of her morality. If ones values are expressed through sex, then what does it mean to long to be dominated and overcome physically? (as both Dominique and Dagny are physically dominated by the male heros of the books)

-aurora-

p.s. i love that different opinions that i get to read on this website which is why i hope to get some feedback on this topic

Foolish.

She wanted to find a man of equal values that could dominate her, because she's so used to the corrupt dullards that she dominates day in and day out with her superior mind. She doesn't want to be dominated per se, she just wants a challenge.

It means the person wants another with a confident sense of will. Enough to risk raping someone because you know their inner thoughts. That kind of intellect isn't an ordinary kind.