Thoughts On Sexual Variety

[Elle]

In addition, contrary to popular opinion, I think a lot of women want to be admired for their physical qualities. I want my guy to be head-over-heels for my body—not just my mind. With feminism on the rampage, the emphasis on not treating women like “objects” has gotten out of control. I am my body, just as much as I am my mind. I have no problem with guys appreciating my sexiness.

I agree with you.

The point I was trying to make is that it would be refreshing (for me at least) not to be hit on based solely on the physical. However, if it were purely for the intellectual I think that there would be little there to suggest romance without any kind of physical attraction. So obviously a balance of the two is the way to go.

[stephen_speicher]

Hi Stephen: Please don’t mistake my apparent flippancy for disrespect.

There was nothing "apparent" about your offensive words. And, now you do it again, this time in reference to Frank O'Connor. I do not know if you truly do not see what you do, or whether you intend to be offensive. In either case, please stop speculating about the personal life of Ayn Rand or her husband, and focus on ideas instead.

[Ed from OC]

You can compare different definitions of the term "Metrosexual" here.

I wouldn't include classy guys like Cary Grant or Gene Kelly or James Bond under this concept. There's a world of difference between some guy who is not a slob and a prissy guy who constantly fusses over his appearance.

I think South Park did a wonderful spoof of the whole "Queer Eye" / "Metrosexual" fad. In the episode, the women get upset with their husbands for not being, well, manly. And I agree: guys should be guys and women should be women. There's nothing homophobic about it. I like the fact that men and women are different. I find it ridiculous to see these guys so concerned with getting makeovers, facials, manicures, pedicures, another dozen shoes, the latest stylish haircut, etc., etc.

Another way to put it: who would better fit the concept: Roark or Keating?

[dondigitalia]

You have an interesting name. Does it have salacious implications, or is it merely an arbitrary group of letters?

It's something a good friend once called me as a joke. It's a long, long story how that nickname came to be, but basically it's because she said I "went mafia" on somebody (hence the Italian-ization of Digitalia). No, it doesn't mean I went around busting kneecaps or making people "sleep with the fishes."

I don't understand why you thought it was salacious. Where did you get that idea?

[dondigitalia]

I think the term Metrosexual is fantastic!  I, for one, am almost exclusively attracted to metro men, those who are often assumed gay because they are stylish and sensitive and classy.  Now I have an appropriate and all-encompassing adjective and I am delighted!

*shoots a respectfully appreciative look toward CIRCE*

I don't see what would be considered disparaging about the term, unless the person who said this is very homophobic and resents the comparison.  Is this true?

I have embraced the term and generally embrace it's application to myself as a badge of honor. Being well-groomed is nothing to be ashamed of. Indeed, a man should take pride in the fact that he takes care of his body. We all have one and only one body. To let it go to waste wold be foolish at best.

[dondigitalia]

I find it ridiculous to see these guys so concerned with getting makeovers, facials, manicures, pedicures...

That is a little over the top.

As far as the shoes, I have to say I have about 40 pairs, but it's more b/c I collect interesting sneakers than b/c I *need* another dozen pair of shoes. And I cut my own hair. It's buzzed and oh so easy to take care of.

I still get labeled "metrosexual," though. Proper definitions aside, the term generally gets applied to any man of above-average appearance who puts a little bit of thought into matching his clothes.

[Neurosophist]

It seems this term is somewhat bigoted in the end and shouldn't be used. It either draws on stereotypes of gays as A) fussy over their appearance (and thus for most people an aspersion toward the person being name-called) or well groomed (and thus a positive, a complement to the person in question). I think I oppose it for the same reasons that I generally don't like seeing the show "queer eye", because not all gay men fit into the little box and I believe it would be derogatory to the gays who don't act that way to be constantly told that because they are gay they need to act that way (they get enough that way just from evangelists telling them to go try girls).

[Neurosophist]

That smilie, while coincidentally very appropriate, was intended to be a B )

[CIRCE]

I would agree--after checking out that definition snippet--that the word is generally used in the way many of us are describing it--as applying to sensitive, stylish, well-groomed men. Prissy boys who pluck their eyebrows are something else altogether.

Don--who *needs* 40 pairs of shoes??? Not I, although I probably own that many. No, I *want* 30 pairs of shoes, and I *need* 10 more for various forms of dance. (slight exaggerations being employed)

Chicks, fags, and metros just tend to apreciate that, beyond having function, shoes can also complement one's wardrobe, and that is a fabulous thing!

[Sabine]

Ok, I have been haunting this disussion long enough, and I'll toss in my thoughts.

I can't stand a prissy man, but I do like a man who keep himself up. Basically, I think the ideal man for me would be able to camp with me in the mountains for a week, but could also be my escort to a nice dinner party and hold his own.

There's a balance.

Sabine

[Ramare]

Basically, I think the ideal man for me would be able to camp with me in the mountains for a week, but could also be my escort to a nice dinner party and hold his own.

I can't help but think of the man who wore his formal clothes in such a way as to make the others appear as if they were masquerading in borrowed costumes . . . and yet played the hardest tennis game I've ever read about.

*sigh*

Would that he lived next door.

[Eddie]

It's something a good friend once called me as a joke. It's a long, long story how that nickname came to be, but basically it's because she said I "went mafia" on somebody (hence the Italian-ization of Digitalia). No, it doesn't mean I went around busting kneecaps or making people "sleep with the fishes."

I don't understand why you thought it was salacious. Where did you get that idea?

My computer screen doesn't have very good definition, and I misread one of the

letters in your screen name, although I see that I've spelled it correctly. Call it a slippage between brain and fingers. I don't want to go into this too much, because I've been told off as it is in other posts, but now I see the don should be seperate, my mind is at rest.

E

[stephen_speicher]

Surely a degree of gentle humour is permissible on an otherwise serious forum about ideas?

Since I am not the owner, I cannot speak for the forum, but I for one find no humor in your presumptuous, derisive, and offensive speculations about the character of Miss Rand, her husband Frank O'Connor, and in her relationship with her husband and Branden. Ayn Rand is not the proper object of such remarks, and, in my view, should never be permitted on a forum dedicated to her philosophy.

I would here publicly ask the forum moderators to strike from the forum record the offensive remarks made about Ayn Rand.

[Capitalism Forever]

I for one find no humor in [Eddie's] presumptuous, derisive, and offensive speculations about the character of Miss Rand, her husband Frank O'Connor, and in her relationship with her husband and Branden.

I agree. I have deleted his offensive posts and warned him.

[Eddie]

I am merely a guest to this site, so of course I abide by the rulings of those who run it. But I’m disappointed that my attempts at humour have fallen on stony ground. The ability to laugh at one’s foibles and those of one’s heroes is surely a great strength.

Among other things, it pre-empts the pain when confronted with the slings of outsiders, as well as fortifying one’s own position. One of the major movements of the last 40 years, feminism, has always been derided because feminists were said to be so po-faced and unable to take a joke. Reacting to such a charge merely reinforces it, whereas going one better takes the wind out of the sails of one’s opponents.

If Objectivists were to apply the same solution to some of the more sensitive issues relating to Miss Rand, perhaps some of the sting could be lessened.

E

[stephen_speicher]

I am merely a guest to this site, so of course I abide by the rulings of those who run it. But I’m disappointed that my attempts at humour have fallen on stony ground. The ability to laugh at one’s foibles and those of one’s heroes is surely a great strength.

"In essence, humor is the denial of the importance or metaphysical validity of something. Therefore, the type of humor you use depends on what you are laughing at. If you laugh at something evil, your humor will have a benevolent quality. If you laugh at the Rood, it will have a malicious quality."

-- Ayn Rand, The Art of Nonfiction: A Guide for Writers and Readers, p. 126.

[F*ckCommunism]

here is an interesting situation...

my husband and i seperated three years after we were married... and for the next year i had many sexual 'conquests'... some of these were with men and some with women, but all were with people i respected and found some measure of value in... instead of gratuitous sex for the sake of sex, i allowed myself to be physically intimate with people i found worthwhile, and i as honest with them about the non-future of the relationships...

i think as long as you are honest with the people involved, including yourself (because i have had friends who thought they were so modern and independant by sleeping with everyone and anyone, when in reality they were looking for acceptance thru sex) the type of relationship or lack of relationship does not matter...

and by being honest you also allow yourself to be open and available when someone you do want to pursue comes along...

[Eddie]

"In essence, humor is the denial of the importance or metaphysical validity of something. Therefore, the type of humor you use depends on what you are laughing at. If you laugh at something evil, your humor will have a benevolent quality. If you laugh at the Rood, it will have a malicious quality."

-- Ayn Rand, The Art of Nonfiction: A Guide for Writers and Readers, p. 126.

I said laughing at the foibles of one’s heroes, so I guess it depends in large measure on how one views the actions of one’s heroes, and their consequences. I don’t think it can be denied that the effects of the Rand/Branden affair were at least unfortunate.

The aftermath effectively crippled the Objectivist movement at the time, and the effects reverberate to this day, if the contents of some other websites are anything to go by. These sometimes quite bitter squabbles seem to consume an enormous amount of energy, and must be a great disappointment for budding Objectivists who are hoping to find a life-affirming philosophy.

Whether a degree of even self-deprecating humour can help repair the damage I can’t tell. But I would have thought that heavy-handed control was a poor example for newcomers.

E

[stephen_speicher]

These sometimes quite bitter squabbles seem to consume an enormous amount of energy, and must be a great disappointment for budding Objectivists who are hoping to find a life-affirming philosophy.

You were the one who brought the issue up, in a goodly percentage of your few posts to this group. It wouldn't have "consumed[d] an enormous amount of energy" if instead you focused on the "life-affirming philosophy."

Whether a degree of even self-deprecating humour can help repair the damage I can’t tell.

Feel free to deprecate yourself all that you like, but please keep your deprecation of the character of Ayn Rand, and her husband, to yourself. If you want to disagree with ideas, that is fair game, but I for one do not care to hear your offensive speculations about Ayn Rand.

But I would have thought that heavy-handed control was a poor example for newcomers.

The "heavy-handed control" which a moderator exercised was to remove your offensive remarks about Ayn Rand. I am glad to see the operation of this board maintain appropriate standards. If you think that to be a "poor standard," then perhaps you should seek a forum more in tune with your own standards.

[Betsy]

Removed.

Edited May 28, 2004 by Betsy

[AshRyan]

...Prissy boys who pluck their eyebrows are something else altogether.

You know, while I am certainly not "prissy" and no one would consider me a "metrosexual," some of us have eyebrows that desperately need plucking once in a while!

[Eddie]

You were the one who brought the issue up, in a goodly percentage of your few posts to this group. It wouldn't have "consumed[d] an enormous amount of energy" if instead you focused on the "life-affirming philosophy."

If you want to disagree with ideas, that is fair game, but I for one do not care to hear your offensive speculations about Ayn Rand.

By “issue” here I assume you are referring to current divisions among Objectivists, or those who claim to be Objectivists. In fact, I only referred to this issue once, in my most recent post, as a background to my other comments. So it’s not consuming a vast amount of my energy.

However, one of the longest threads on this site is “ARI vs TOC”, so clearly there are some who do expend energy on this topic. Therefore, the issue is alive and well, with no help needed from me.

You could always ignore my “offensive speculations”, although if you can "hear" them, this internet technology is more advanced than I thought. My speculations were based on recorded facts, so they could be no more offensive than those facts.

E

[stephen_speicher]

You could always ignore my “offensive speculations” ...

Look, enough of this. Just keep your speculations about Ayn Rand's character and personal life, to yourself. They do not belong on this forum. As I understand it, this board is meant for serious discussion of Objectivist ideas, not offensive gossip.

[AshRyan]

Look, enough of this. Just keep your speculations about Ayn Rand's character and personal life, to yourself. They do not belong on this forum. As I understand it, this board is meant for serious discussion of Objectivist ideas, not offensive gossip.

Mr. Speicher's understanding is correct. Eddie has been warned for the offending posts, and if the behavior continues further actions will be taken.

[srschirm]

I can relate to you on this subject, argive. I am 20, am a budding objectivist, and still dealing with some hefty psychological issues, such as social anxiety, depression, and a sex addiction. I must say the times I have focused on not viewing pornography and holding the view that sex should be shared by two people who share the same values and are in love, have been the happiest I've been. This is a huge issue for me as well. I haven't really read any of the other posts yet except Elle's first on this topic, because I wanted to make sure I typed this reply. Does anyone else have anything to say about this subject?