Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Thoughts On Sexual Variety

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I don't see the point of speculating as to what percentage of the population meets our dating standards. In my view, these are the essential questions:

  • What kind of person am I looking for?
  • How should I go about looking for them?
  • What should I do to attract them once I find them?
  • What should I do to keep our relationship strong once I've attracted them?

I've answered that first question for myself, I have a pretty good grasp on that last question, but the two middle ones consistently trip me up.

Where are all the rational and SINGLE women?

Well, for starters, they aren't in my bedroom. But that leaves a lot of ground to cover. Does anyone have any suggestions for where one can go to meet single women who are not drunk, and who are not so busy that attempting to introduce onself to them would be an imposition? I'm keeping my fingers crossed that Betsy's advice holds and I might meet a beautiful, single, rational Objectivist woman at this year's summer conference. But if that does happen, I'll run into problem number two...

Sticking out like a sore thumb...only in a good way.

----Start Fantasy----

...I check my watch. Fifteen minutes until Binswanger's logic lecture. I eat my banana. Mmmm....potassium. And then I see her. An amazing-looking girl walks into the cafeteria. "Check out those premises!" I say to a guy sitting next to me. He ignores me. I decide to introduce myself.

But what to say? Well, love is a response to values, so that's what I'll do. I'll show off my values.

"Wanna see something neat?" I say to the girl.

"Uh...okay," she says. "Ewww...what are those!?"

"Those are my values," I say proudly.

"Well get them away from me."

----End Fantasy----

In any case, the question is: how does someone whose best feature is his mind and his character make that apparent to someone in a reasonably short amount of time? Or, perhaps, is that even the right question in this context?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 107
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

In any case, the question is: how does someone whose best feature is his mind and his character make that apparent to someone in a reasonably short amount of time?  Or, perhaps, is that even the right question in this context?

I think this is a good question, for both males and perhaps even moreso for females who are trying to introduce themselves to males and want to showcase more than simply their physical assets.

For women I think their presentation of themselves can say a lot about how they value themselves and whether or not their self-esteem is intact, but I think in addition to that many women (I know I feel this way so I am going to make a generalization here) want men to notice them for things that go deeper than the physical. I think this may circle back to the problem of celebrity worship, where American women feel as if they are constantly on a stage or TV and need to fill the role of the "perfect" women - and instead end up feeling like a piece of meat. Feminists play this up as victimization to a social construct of what beauty is, but really this is a self inflicted "ideology" that can not be applied to all women, and only works if women except the basic premise that what is being shown to them is actually what is beautiful.

I think the most effective way for a man to showcase his values to a woman he finds attractive is simply to engage her in conversation about those values via talking about his and her experiences and finding correlations between two seperate lives that make it possible for you to relate to each other. I think the reason the "20 questions" approach to dating works so well is that you can both give and get a very good idea of a person's sense of life simply in how they talk about it.

Take the fantasy situation. Why not just tell her exactly what you see? The way you describe beauty is certain to say a great deal about your values in my opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see that I've arrived a bit late in this conversation, but there's no time like the present for shameless self-promotion (the best kind)!

The gentlemen seem to think that genuine sexy, lovely and beautiful O'ist females are in short supply. While that's true, I have a myriad of friends who share such qualities. I, of course, and the sexiest, loveliest and most beautiful O'ist female on the market. :P Don't believe me?

-Laura Baron

Laura_fur

Link to post
Share on other sites
And then I see her.  An amazing-looking girl walks into the cafeteria.  "Check out those premises!" I say to a guy sitting next to me.  He ignores me.  I decide to introduce myself.

But what to say?  Well, love is a response to values, so that's what I'll do.  I'll show off my values.

I don't think that's your best opening move.

This is what I recommend:

Identify what it is about HER that attracted your attention and that YOU value. Then step up to her and tell her what it is:

"That sweater you're wearing looks lovely on you and the way your hair swings takes my breath away. Seeing you just made my whole day. Thank you!"

Then WALK AWAY and go about your business.

Now it's her move.

Glance back some time later and see if she is trying to make eye contact, attract your attention, making inquiries about you, etc.

If she is, it's your move.

"Can I get you a cup of coffee?"

-OR-

"May I have this dance?"

-OR-

"Is this seat (next to you) taken?"

Etc.

If she agrees, get the coffee, dance, sit down, etc.

Now it's her move.

===

That's how the Dance of Romance begins.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like to be winked at. :dough: It might sound silly, but you'd be surprised how far a wink and a smile can go. And Betsy's suggestions sound great.

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. (Although I have no vampish pics for verification. :rolleyes:)

Oh, and speaking of coffee, I have a male Objectivist friend who’s constantly meeting smart, cute women at coffeeshops. Just a thought.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. (Although I have no vampish pics for verification. :rolleyes:)

This actually seems verified by evolutionary biology. As I have said elsewhere, practically everything women do to enhance their appearance has as its ultimate reason the desire to attract a man. Heels, lipstick, eye-liner, flattering clothes, push-up bras, breast implants, nail polish, make-up, hair spray, perfume, etc. I have even read a convincing argument that female breasts themselves are for the main purpose of attracting male attention. (They seem to have developed when primates started having face to face sex. Other animal females who have dogy style sex "present" by lifting their rear. So it seems evolution in essence gave women a rear-end (so to speak) on their chest to serve as an attractor. This is why it is no accident that large breasts are universally admired. And that's not just my preferrence.)

Femminists are way out of touch with reality when they start with their "socially constructed standards of beauty" crap. The majority of a woman's life is spent trying to make herself beautiful. I don't see how this can be denied. (and I would further argue that concepts of beauty itself are rooted in biological factors and are not arbitrary.) For an integrated person however, physical beauty would be useless without intellectual and moral development. Perhaps in the future, these attributes will be so high in demand that sexual survival pressure alone will force nearly everyone to develop them. However, as I keep saying the mind-body dichotomy in today's culture has created (probably more so than any other period) the phenomenon of the mindless bombshell. Hollywood is a testament to that.

Damn shame.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While it is true that women do try to make themselves beautiful, it is not true that it is always for the benefit of men. Sometimes when I leave the house, I want to know I look damn good. It makes you feel better about yourself, because, as you say, presentation is a part of the package. Also, I love looking in the mirror and knowing that the beautiful figure standing before me is myself.

Also, everyone is making reference to women making themselves look good, are the men who posted not trying to make themselves look good? It is just as rare to find a guy who looks just as nice as I do. Someone without loads of 'ice' bling-blingin everywhere, and someone who doesnt buy overly priced clothes that are already messed up! (I hate that crap, if I pay 50 dollars for some jeans, they need to look damn good, not frayed at the bottom with holes everywhere...)

Women are beautiful, yes, but the male figure should also be just as revered as a thing of pure beauty, and the way in which it is presented, to the world and to yourself, does something to your self-esteem. :huh:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, everyone is making reference to women making themselves look good, are the men who posted not trying to make themselves look good?

I agree with what you are saying and to a certain extent it is true that male appearance is enhanced with attracting a female in mind. The universal traits associated with masculinity being a slim, tappered waiste and broad, developed pectoral muscles. However, from what I've read about evolutionary biology, it seems that in species where there are bigger/stronger males and smaller/weaker females there occurs sort of a division of labor (to use a phrase). Women have been selected because of their youthful, fertile appearance and men have been selected based on their ability to provide resources and security.

Now I am not a determinist so I am not saying that these biological "impulses" determine human attraction. But I think it is unquestionable that they influence behavior. (I mean would Donald Trump really be dating super models if he were not a billionaire?) The old paradigm of women giving sex for resources and men giving resources for sex still holds true for much of the population even in the 21st century.

Interesting point here. Birth control is an enormously important, history changing factor to consider. It has changed the dynamics of male/female relationships making them almost unrecognizable to what they were before. The fact that women have control over their reproductive cycles now changes much of what relationships were about for the past 2 million years. This combined with the economic opportunities available to women as a result of political and economic freedom has allowed women to choose their partners for reasons not associated with the traditional resources/security paradigm. (Although not all women take advantage of their freedoms.)

So today a woman can have the luxury of wanting a partner that is fit and looks like Brad Pitt. But always remember that modern industrial society is but a fraction of evolutionary time. Mankind has been evolving for millions of years. The influences that have guided us this long still have their affects and thus even now the emphasis is on female beauty and male productivity (resource provider).

A rich, unattractive male can get a bevy of beautiful young girls (other things being equal). A beautiful young female can get almost any man she wants. An unattractive (and non-young) female will have to have developed other attractive attributes such as personality, humor, character, etc., if she wants to go out on a saturday night. She will also need to invest her time in more mentally active men who will value her intelligence. (These men will not look like Brad Pitt.) An unattractive, poor graduate stundent with tastes in Mozart and Aristotle couldn't get himself arrested. For him, he will definitely need to direct his energy to someone who is a physical reflection of himself b/c in our society beautiful women will spit on him. (Sad but true.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, everyone is making reference to women making themselves look good, are the men who posted not trying to make themselves look good?

I am. I go to the gym every day, iron all of my clothes (which, I will add, don't look like they are falling off of me when I wear them; this "baggy" trend is ridiculous), keep clean shaven, take good care of my teeth, etc.

Looking good is definitely a two-way street. To me, it's really disgusting to see how many American men have let themselves go to waste for no other reason than the idea that caring about one's appearance is "feminine." In fact, it has only been within the last century that men (as a whole) have stopped caring about their appearance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I am. I go to the gym every day, iron all of my clothes (which, I will add, don't look like they are falling off of me when I wear them; this "baggy" trend is ridiculous), keep clean shaven, take good care of my teeth, etc.

Looking good is definitely a two-way street. To me, it's really disgusting to see how many American men have let themselves go to waste for no other reason than the idea that caring about one's appearance is "feminine." In fact, it has only been within the last century that men (as a whole) have stopped caring about their appearance.

Agreed. Actually, the term 'Meterosexual' is a disparaging one. It seems to mock any man who grooms himself and takes pride in his appearance. Further, it insults them by implying that they are gay. Just looking at the history of American cinema, it would appear that all men of the Gene Kelly / Fred Astaire era would be classified as 'Meterosexuals'. At one point, it was not only common but expected for a man to be as fit and presentable as he could be. The change probably has its roots in corrupt philosophy like so much else.

Link to post
Share on other sites

'Meterosexual' does not imply homosexuality, half the word itself is 'heterosexual'. It seems more a word which would move away from stereotypes in which only gay males take care of themselves. By allowing men who want to take care of themselves in the way which gay males are stereotyped as to be grouped into the less discriminatory grouping of 'meterosexual' it allows for more men to feel it's ok to take pride in their appearance. I can see it being used as an insult by someone who finds the 'metropolitan' part of the word abhorrent, but for the rest of us who believe cities are fine but want an easier way to say that you shouldn't assume anything about our orientation/femininity based on just clothing, the word is a positive. In short, saying that men who take pride in themselves are not gay, as the word does, allows them to act in 'typically gay' ways with less fear of shame.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I see that I've arrived a bit late in this conversation, but there's no time like the present for shameless self-promotion (the best kind)!

The gentlemen seem to think that genuine sexy, lovely and beautiful O'ist females are in short supply.  While that's true, I have a myriad of friends who share such qualities.  I, of course, and the sexiest, loveliest and most beautiful O'ist female on the market.  :lol: Don't believe me?

-Laura Baron

If this were an olympic race, you're a Kenyan.

WINNER. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
On the other hand, it’s possible that a sturdy young man like Nathaniel Branden emitted more soap-like qualities than husband Frank, hence his greater appeal. I have no fixed view on these matters, but I notice that the lawn is getting rather long, and wonder how I could test my theory.

If your purpose was to offend, you have. The philosophy of Objectivism is what gave rise to this forum, and the founder of that philosophy does not deserve such a flippant mischaracterization. If you cannot deal with ideas instead of insults, I for one will not read your posts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If your purpose was to offend, you have. The philosophy of Objectivism is what gave rise to this forum, and the founder of that philosophy does not deserve such a flippant mischaracterization. If you cannot deal with ideas instead of insults, I for one will not read your posts.

I agree.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I am. I go to the gym every day, iron all of my clothes (which, I will add, don't look like they are falling off of me when I wear them; this "baggy" trend is ridiculous), keep clean shaven, take good care of my teeth, etc.

Looking good is definitely a two-way street. To me, it's really disgusting to see how many American men have let themselves go to waste for no other reason than the idea that caring about one's appearance is "feminine." In fact, it has only been within the last century that men (as a whole) have stopped caring about their appearance.

This is true, and I do the same things.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Eddie, have you read Nathaniel Branden's work? If you have, I don't see how you can compare him to some sort of worthless soapie actor. His split was Ayn Rand was regretable but insulting him in this manner is uncalled for.

By the way, Mr. Branden, if you're reading this, hello and thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I think it really matters *how* a guy shows, visually, that he's into you physically. If I get the feeling I'm being mentally undressed initially, I have no interest and just want to chew the guys balls off. If it's a respectfully apreciative look, though, I'm likely to be receptive.

Do I look vampish? I was going for smoldering. :o

post-11-1085425070_thumb.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, also...

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!

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?

Are all these soapy men who work out and use multi-syllabic words metros, out of curiosity?

Link to post
Share on other sites

By "these" men I assume you mean the posters who said they work out.

I'm a huge athlete, and I'm in fantastic shape - I brush my teeth thrice daily, use copious amounts of mouthwash, and usually shower bi-daily, as well as wearing clean (and what I think are somewhat nice :D) clothes. I'd say that my vocabulary is very extensive, but it's been slightly numbed by the school I'm attending. :o

However.. I've never touched a beauty product, never seen the inside of a beauty parlor and I only got into the shape that I am out of a desire to be fit, because I love to run, and it sucks to get tired fast. Also wanted to be strong for football.

I'm pretty sure that I don't fit the metrosexual mold, but perhaps I fit it more closely than the average male. Not certain.

On the homophobic comment: it's possible, but I generally see it more from the average guy who resents the attention that these men get and are still stuck in the primitive mindset that a man should be a shirtless grunt who uses women at his will and eats raw steak.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...