Homosexuality vs. Heterosexuality

[FeatherFall]

Are these conversations strange or what? Or is this just me projecting my "own value contexts on others"?

Yes, these conversations are strange. You you showcase the physically attractive and hygienic people with little character, and the intelligent or ambitious people with bizarre grooming habits. Personally, I wouldn't find any of these people to be appropriate partners. I certainly don't know why anyone would be so torn on the issue of dating one or the other that they would need third party advice. Nor do I understand why these people can't both ask Jane or John.

If you are trying to project a value context, I certainly can't discern what that context is based on your post.

Edited March 26, 2006 by FeatherFall

[FeatherFall]

And I thought I lost all interest in this thread. After considering it a moment longer, I think I can give a more complete reply. All four might be appropriate partners. Here's why:

Jane's friend's love interest #1: Jane's friend wants a husband that is pleasing to the eye. Jane's friend wants extra time to pursue his or her own carrier (Jane's friend is in the burgeoning off-world real-estate industry) and has the potential to make billions if he or she applies him or herself, spending time and effort. But he or she still wants kids (possibly to adopt), which his or her potential hubby can take care of. Plus, this guy is an awesome cook. Wonderful!

Jane's friend's love interest #2: Jane's friend wants an ambitious, wealthy husband. He or she doesn't care that Mr. Gates is already married, and he or she is not all that into fashion. Despite the seemingly negative tone Jane's friend took when he or she mentioned Bill's freckles, he or she actually doesn't care about them. He or she is sexually attracted to the actions one takes in private, so long as his or her suitor is healthy. Perfect match!

Jack's friend's love interest #1: Jack's friend is way into pretty and sweet chicks that dress like angels. He or she wants a wife who is willing to forgo a carrier to settle down and help raise a family. Gold!

Jack's friend's love interest #2: Jack's friend loves assertive, confident women. Jack's friend has spoken with this woman, and has found out that they like the same positions. Everyone looks better when the lights are out, he or she thinks. He or she knows that the act of sex has more to do with touch than sight. But Jack's friend does like to have eye contact when making love, and he or she is willing to wager that the woman in question is more likely to do that. So the choice is obvious. Gold-Pressed Latinum!

Edit: added Star Trek reference

Edited March 26, 2006 by FeatherFall

[blackdiamond]

Featherfall, the relevant situations around those conversations are ONLY the ones i gave: don't steal my example!

Okay, let me change the example so that there is less room for 'stealing'.

We have two couples on a joint wedding.

Couple 1: woman is a low-paid secretary, getting married to a top executive of the company she works for (a man).

Couple 2: man is a low-paid secretary getting married to a top executive in the company he works for (a woman).

Do you think the male secretary in couple 2 will be as comfortable and as happy with her situation as the female secretary in couple 1? do you think as a man he will be as proud of his "big catch" as the woman in couple 1 will be (of her "big catch")?

I am running out of examples and i do not believe this one will work either simply because someone (maybe not you, Featherfall) is bound to evade the essentials of the example by either introducing other situations that my two couples "could be in" or by simply saying "it's just the culture that has put pressure on the man in couple 2 so that he feels no pride in his very normal situation".

So what if there is cultural pressure? who says cultural pressure is always wrong? it might have a wrong reason, but it does not mean it is wrong. A christian society puts pressure on men to be faithful to their wives, for example - this is cultural pressure but is it wrong to be faithful to your wife just because there is such influence coming from society (or culture)? Just because society "rewards" something, does that mean that rational justification for the action is impossible?

A man is different from a woman, physically. I expect that this should have some influence on the way the man perceives himself and the way the woman perceives herself, and this will have an influence on the things they value or need (in another person - a partner - a life partner), and also on what they present to the other person to attract them. If a person sees herself as physically weak, for example, the way they will value "strength" is different from the person who sees himself as physically strong and has grown up competing with others to show who has more strength, etc (just an example). If they see their beauty as their one advantage (something not so visible in the other type), they might want to accentuate this part of themselves. if a person was never appreciated for their strength, but always appreciated for their "nice hair", etc, how can this not have an impact on them somehow? and the complement was based on fact, by the way, not myth (so it is not irrational).

These are self-perceptions based on facts of reality and not merely on cultural ideas. Since these perceptions are real, they will have a psychological impact on the persons; and since they are fundamental in nature and not merely differences in degree, the resulting psychological traits in these different persons will also be fundamentally different. Since man requires a romantic partner not only physically, but psycholigically as well, it is logical to expect that the partner that will complement him most will be the one who has fundamental physical differences with himself, as these will also have resulting fundamental psychological differences with himself. The partnership will rationally work IF the two also share similar values (by choice). Most people on this forum are only concentrating on the values part - the similarity - while forgetting the importance of the complementing parts - the difference - which is in fact the foundation or starting point of the relationship (see next paragraph!).

When two successful companies want to strike a partnership, they look for two things: difference and similarity. They should (firstly) be different enough to be highly complimentary so that they can achieve more (or else they do not need to 'partner'), but similar enough to have non-conflicting values. The skills they will value in the other company are the ones they lack and can not easily develop (without losing their current identity - or all their money!), and yet they will want the other company to have their values or the partnership will simply not work.

Has anyone said anything that makes this explanation/idea implausible or illogical? No. What most people here keep saying is, "you haven't given any reason" (for this difference in behaviours), even though the reason has been given many times; or "you just keep referring to other parts of this fat forum", etc etc. Classic case of evasion.

if you do not believe these physical differences are connected to masculinity and femininity in any way and ascribe all differences to cultural and societal pressures, could you tell us what impact, if any, you think these physical differences have on the social behaviour of men and women?

[For those new to this discussion, I have not even given my own explanation yet of why i know homosexuality is immoral; i am simply defending another (simpler) theory presented on this forum that i find rational and fundamentally (but not technically) similar to mine.]

[Capitalism Forever]

I have not even given my own explanation yet of why i know homosexuality is immoral; i am simply defending another (simpler) theory presented on this forum that i find rational and fundamentally (but not technically) similar to mine.

NOW you made me curious!

[hunterrose]

Has anyone said anything that makes this explanation/idea implausible or illogical? No. What most people here keep saying is, "you haven't given any reason" (for this difference in behaviours), even though the reason has been given many times; or "you just keep referring to other parts of this fat forum", etc etc. Classic case of evasion.

No one likes being accused of evasion, and it's ironic that you continue to do so.

Couple 1: woman is a low-paid secretary, getting married to a top executive of the company she works for (a man).

Couple 2: man is a low-paid secretary getting married to a top executive in the company he works for (a woman).

I more or less agree that, ceteris paribus, more women will be pleasingly impressed by a spouse's position as an exec than men. But if the fact that most people do something doesn't determine the rationality of a behavior, how are you to show whether your situation is either an example of popular rationality or irrationality?

[Potentially merging companies] should (firstly) be different enough to be highly complimentary so that they can achieve more.

"Complements" refers to what [makes] something complete or (more) perfect... and is not limited to things that are different.

A venture might require more money than two similar companies have individually, and attaining those resources alone might be time-consuming and/or costly. Why would achieving more require two potentially partnering entities be different?

[FeatherFall]

Featherfall, the relevant situations around those conversations are ONLY the ones i gave: don't steal my example!

Okay, let me change the example so that there is less room for 'stealing'.

We have two couples on a joint wedding.

Couple 1: woman is a low-paid secretary, getting married to a top executive of the company she works for (a man).

Couple 2: man is a low-paid secretary getting married to a top executive in the company he works for (a woman).

These examples (both your previous two and these two) omit values contexts. Depending on that context, both couples could be happy or miserable. But, later in the post you add an implied values context (your own). People keep saying that you have yet to prove your position, not because they are evading what you have written, but because you haven't proved it. If you refer to a post that hasn't proved your case (or whatever case you are currently championing) then you still haven't proved your case.

A man is different from a woman, physically. I expect that this should have some influence on the way the man perceives himself and the way the woman perceives herself, and this will have an influence on the things they value or need (in another person - a partner - a life partner), and also on what they present to the other person to attract them. If a person sees herself as physically weak, for example, the way they will value "strength" is different from the person who sees himself as physically strong and has grown up competing with others to show who has more strength, etc (just an example). If they see their beauty as their one advantage (something not so visible in the other type), they might want to accentuate this part of themselves. if a person was never appreciated for their strength, but always appreciated for their "nice hair", etc, how can this not have an impact on them somehow? and the complement was based on fact, by the way, not myth (so it is not irrational).

These are self-perceptions based on facts of reality and not merely on cultural ideas. Since these perceptions are real, they will have a psychological impact on the persons; and since they are fundamental in nature and not merely differences in degree, the resulting psychological traits in these different persons will also be fundamentally different. Since man requires a romantic partner not only physically, but psycholigically as well, it is logical to expect that the partner that will complement him most will be the one who has fundamental physical differences with himself, as these will also have resulting fundamental psychological differences with himself. The partnership will rationally work IF the two also share similar values (by choice). Most people on this forum are only concentrating on the values part - the similarity - while forgetting the importance of the complementing parts - the difference - which is in fact the foundation or starting point of the relationship (see next paragraph!).

What about the weak man with pretty hair, and the strong woman with thinning hair? The logic of the argument you are promoting is that they should not be gay, because that means they must do away with their own masculinity/femininity. They would have no way of finding a partner unless they threw away your notions of masculinity/femininity and accepted a partner who did the same. Then, they would be an OK match with each other, if not for the fact that the current logic rejects a woman being masculine and a male being effeminate. Can you see the contradiction here? I'll spell it out: A man requires a romantic partner, but your notions of the masculine and feminine deny men and women born with certain characteristics a happy love life.

[For those new to this discussion, I have not even given my own explanation yet of why i know homosexuality is immoral; i am simply defending another (simpler) theory presented on this forum that i find rational and fundamentally (but not technically) similar to mine.]

If you have reasons for why you know it to be wrong, present them, because the current avenue is not sufficient -- you have to know how long this thread is. We either need clear, succinct logic for the old ideas (a task I do not believe logic is capable of), or new ideas. Please assist with setting this dispute to rest by presenting your new ideas. Edited March 27, 2006 by FeatherFall

[Qwertz]

Please assist with setting this dispute to rest by presenting your new ideas.

Hear, hear!

-Q

[Styles2112]

Featherfall, the relevant situations around those conversations are ONLY the ones i gave: don't steal my example!

Okay, let me change the example so that there is less room for 'stealing'.

We have two couples on a joint wedding.

Couple 1: woman is a low-paid secretary, getting married to a top executive of the company she works for (a man).

Couple 2: man is a low-paid secretary getting married to a top executive in the company he works for (a woman).

Do you think the male secretary in couple 2 will be as comfortable and as happy with her situation as the female secretary in couple 1? do you think as a man he will be as proud of his "big catch" as the woman in couple 1 will be (of her "big catch")?

Do all the parties involved "love" what they do for a job? If so, then there's no reason either couple would be unhappy. Unfortunatley, NONE of these examples are concrete because there's a bit more to marriage/love than just who makes more money, or who's masculine and who's feminine.

[Inspector]

What about the weak man with pretty hair, and the strong woman with thinning hair? The logic of the argument you are promoting is that they should not be gay, because that means they must do away with their own masculinity/femininity. They would have no way of finding a partner unless they threw away your notions of masculinity/femininity and accepted a partner who did the same. Then, they would be an OK match with each other, if not for the fact that the current logic rejects a woman being masculine and a male being effeminate. Can you see the contradiction here? I'll spell it out: A man requires a romantic partner, but your notions of the masculine and feminine deny men and women born with certain characteristics a happy love life.

That logic does not follow. If someone is simply very ugly, they do not have to think that ugly is beautiful. They may end up with an equally ugly partner, recognizing that due to the unfortunate nature of the face they were born with, that is the best they will ever do.

By your logic, it would be necessary for them to declare that uglyness is beauty in order to justify their inevitably ugly mate.

(this is, of course, a simplification)

Similarly, if a man is born with not particularly masculine traits, he may not be able to find the most feminine of women... but it does not require that he change his view of what is masculine and what is feminine. He just accepts that such is the best he can do.

[FeatherFall]

Do all the parties involved "love" what they do for a job? If so, then there's no reason either couple would be unhappy. Unfortunatley, NONE of these examples are concrete because there's a bit more to marriage/love than just who makes more money, or who's masculine and who's feminine.

This is what I was getting at when I brought up omitting a value context.

By your logic, it would be necessary for them to declare that uglyness is beauty in order to justify their inevitably ugly mate.

Actually, I meant to imply that their logic would require such cognitive gymnastics, but as the statements I made do not address their position directly, I concede that I have inadvertently set up a straw man.

However, my responses to the two hypotheticals remain valid solutions to the dilemmas presented.

[FeatherFall]

Blackdiamond, I'd like to get at some of the relevant things from your recent post:

When two successful companies want to strike a partnership, they look for two things: difference and similarity. They should (firstly) be different enough to be highly complimentary so that they can achieve more (or else they do not need to 'partner'), but similar enough to have non-conflicting values. The skills they will value in the other company are the ones they lack and can not easily develop (without losing their current identity - or all their money!), and yet they will want the other company to have their values or the partnership will simply not work.

Relationships can not be compared to companies. Companies trade resources and services for mutual benefit. The trade involved with a romantic relationship involves love, something that does not require diversification or specialization -- only the recognition of mutual values. It is something that can be given to multiple people without being diminished. One doesn't look for a romantic partner because one can't get stains out of clothing. I will emphasize the part of Ayn Rand's quote below that will illustrate this.

if you do not believe these physical differences are connected to masculinity and femininity in any way and ascribe all differences to cultural and societal pressures, could you tell us what impact, if any, you think these physical differences have on the social behaviour of men and women?

What are the "physical differences connected to femininity and masculinity" that you speak of? This is a serious question of mine. Are they simply the physical manifestations brought about by the differences in the XX and XY chromosomal pairs?

Here is the quote that provides the basis for many of the posts in this thread. It is from The Objectivist, Dec. 1968:

For a woman qua woman, the essence of femininity is hero-worship -- the desire to look up to man. "To look up" does not mean dependence, obedience or anything implying inferiority. It means an intense kind of admiration; and admiration is an emotion that can be experienced only by a person of strong character and independent value-judgments. A "clinging vine" type of woman is not an admirer, but an exploiter of men. Hero-worship is a demanding virtue: a woman has to be worthy of it and of the hero she worships. Intellectually and morally, i.e., as a human being, she has to be his equal; then the object of her worship is specifically his masculinity, not any human virtue she might lack.

This does not mean that a feminine woman feels or projects hero-worship for any and every individual man; as human beings, many of them may, in fact, be her inferiors. Her worship is an abstract emotion for the metaphysical concept of masculinity as such -- which she experiences fully and concretely only for the man she loves, but which colors her attitude of all men. This does not mean that there is a romantic or sexual intention in her attitude toward all men; quite the contrary: the higher her view of masculinity, the more severely demanding her standards. It means that she never loses the awareness of her own sexual identity and theirs. It means that a properly feminine woman does not treat men as if she were their pal, sister, mother -- or leader.

This quote testifies that femininity is a mental attribute, and any physical manifestation of femininity must be due to a choice to engage in hero worship. "Femininity" is often explained by concrete examples that are not applicable in every case. These are the societal influences I spoke of; the way it often manifests itself, not the way it necessarily manifests itself. The only way it must necessarily manifest itself based on the above quote is through worship of masculinity. But masculinity is not defined. I assume that masculinity mirrors femininity; that the essence of masculinity is also hero-worship, and the object of that worship is femininity.

I have a qualm with the distinction between hero-worship in men, and hero-worship in women. The only difference in these mental traits are the seemingly unrelated physical manifestations apparent on the bodies of those holding these traits. I reject any soul-body dichotomy, but it seems to me as if these terms are defined by non-essentials.

Can femininity be expressed by worshiping the femininity of another, and can masculinity be expressed by worshiping the masculinity of another? Prove that they can't, and I will be swayed.

Edited March 29, 2006 by FeatherFall

[blackdiamond]

I'm a bit busy now, but i will make a "quick" reply to hunterrose and see if i can find some time to reply to the others later. I must admit that i find these discussions quite stimulating in many ways; that in itself is a value worth the time spent on this fat forum!

I more or less agree that, ceteris paribus, more women will be pleasingly impressed by a spouse's position as an exec than men. But if the fact that most people do something doesn't determine the rationality of a behavior, how are you to show whether your situation is either an example of popular rationality or irrationality?

Well, Hunter- (or is it -Rose?). Let me ask you some questions:

1. are you a man? 2. are you a rational (and independent) person? (I think you are). 3. would you be proud (and happy) to be the man in my 'couple 2' example?

Perhaps we could settle this by asking many rational people on this forum (and other Objectivist forums): How would you (the men) feel about getting married to a rich executive woman and moving into her house because you can not afford a house of your own (from your small income), getting one of her cars because you can not afford a car of your own, having her fund your big wedding because you do not have the kind of income that can finance it, and going on a honeymoon that is fully funded by her because the place you chose for your honeymoon (the mighty victoria falls in Zambia!) is a bit too expensive for you, but quite cheap for her? Would you be comfortable with this situation as a man? Would you be quite proud if the whole world was told this exciting love story on CNN? (i admit that if most rational men here will answer 'yes' to these questions, i will have not much further to contribute to this discussion - and neither will my other "new idea" have any chance of being accepted here.).

Now let's ask the same questions to the rational, independent Objectivist women - do you think they will have a problem moving into their new (rich) husband's house, have him sponsor the wedding alone, ...etc? Would it be something that will trouble these rational, independent women as much - if at all - as the rational men in similar circumstances (CNN or not)?

Since the subjects of my research would be rational, independent people, would i be wrong to conclude from this [assuming the answers are as i expect] that it is not just "common irrationality" that determines these different behaviours? would i be wrong to conclude that it is not just "cultural pressures enforcing differing ideals on young girls and boys" that determine such differences between men and women?

But first, i would like to get your own answers Hunter (and Featherfall, et al)? how would you feel if you were in the situation described above - and what would you think? after that we could ask some women on this forum the same questions, and assuming total honesty (and yes - no evasion), i am quite confident my point (on this particular aspect of the debate) will be made!

But let's see. who knows. i could be the one just "imposing my value contexts on others".

[Styles2112]

Perhaps we could settle this by asking many rational people on this forum (and other Objectivist forums): How would you (the men) feel about getting married to a rich executive woman and moving into her house because you can not afford a house of your own (from your small income), getting one of her cars because you can not afford a car of your own, having her fund your big wedding because you do not have the kind of income that can finance it, and going on a honeymoon that is fully funded by her because the place you chose for your honeymoon (the mighty victoria falls in Zambia!) is a bit too expensive for you, but quite cheap for her? Would you be comfortable with this situation as a man? Would you be quite proud if the whole world was told this exciting love story on CNN? (i admit that if most rational men here will answer 'yes' to these questions, i will have not much further to contribute to this discussion - and neither will my other "new idea" have any chance of being accepted here.).

Sure, why not? I love what I do. She loves what she does. We're both very good at it. If she's willing to "fund" it (as you so put it), then obviously (as a rational individual) it's of importance/value to her, as well. She, obviously, sees the value and pride in what I do, so why would there be any sort of issue?

In reality, my wife makes more than me (not terribly more, but a couple hundred bucks more a paycheck). I have no problem with this. I like my job, she likes hers. Are you suggesting that I should divorce her because my "masculinity" is in question because of how much I make compared to her? Why is money the standard of value for these relationships. I don't really get some of these "examples." Like, neither my wife, or I, are good at cleaning, so that suggests that I should go have an affair with a maid, simply because the maid is more "complimentary" in that area. I don't think a ROMANTIC relationship can be simplified down to one or two value judgements and expect them to be objective. The relationship is what it is.

Edited March 29, 2006 by Styles2112

[Capitalism Forever]

You know my answer, and you know my wife's answer too, although I don't know who she will be yet.

[Godless Capitalist]

^^Nothing personal, but since you are not married yet and do not have any immediate prospects, you are not really in a position to answer this.

Perhaps we could settle this by asking many rational people on this forum (and other Objectivist forums): How would you (the men) feel about getting married to a rich executive woman and moving into her house because you can not afford a house of your own (from your small income), getting one of her cars because you can not afford a car of your own, having her fund your big wedding because you do not have the kind of income that can finance it, and going on a honeymoon that is fully funded by her because the place you chose for your honeymoon (the mighty victoria falls in Zambia!) is a bit too expensive for you, but quite cheap for her? Would you be comfortable with this situation as a man? Would you be quite proud if the whole world was told this exciting love story on CNN? (i admit that if most rational men here will answer 'yes' to these questions, i will have not much further to contribute to this discussion - and neither will my other "new idea" have any chance of being accepted here.).

Now let's ask the same questions to the rational, independent Objectivist women - do you think they will have a problem moving into their new (rich) husband's house, have him sponsor the wedding alone, ...etc? Would it be something that will trouble these rational, independent women as much - if at all - as the rational men in similar circumstances (CNN or not)?

My wife makes significantly more than me, and pays more of our expenses. It doesn't bother either one of us. It would bother me to be totally dependent on her, but it would probably bother her even more to be totally dependent on me (because she grew up in semi-poverty after her parents' divorce). That has nothing to do with male/female dynamics; no rational person likes being a parasite.

Now ask: what rational person would want to marry someone (male or female) who expected to be treated like a pampered child and have everything done for them? Not me.

Edited March 29, 2006 by Godless Capitalist

[Godless Capitalist]

I suppose it's safe to assume that you understand what I meant by the ideas represented by John Wayne (right?) so what you're probably missing is that Johnny Depp stands for the opposite of those ideas, not only as far as masculine appearance is concerned, but also masculine action, extending right up to the realm of foreign policy.

Johnny Depp: U.S. is like a stupid puppy

It is no coincidence that the guy you've picked as a perfect specimen of non-masculine looks is also a perfect specimen of abject boot-licking. Weak body, weak mind.

This should win some sort of "non-sequiter-of-the-year" award. Many Hollywood actors generally considered very masculine are also wimpy liberals (eg George Clooney). Conversely, FDR was crippled but still a strong war leader. I don't see any correlation at all, nor would I expect one since it would be a form of biological determinism.

[Capitalism Forever]

since you are not married yet and do not have any immediate prospects, you are not really in a position to answer this.

I wanted to type my response to this, but then I saw that I can insert it simply by quoting you:

This should win some sort of "non-sequitr-of-the-year" award.

[LaVache]

No, the context would be: that's what we are debating - whether homosexuality is moral or immoral. If it is moral (or amoral), then your felatio statement might have some merit. If it is not, then it wouldn't (which was the point of the murder example - to show the possibility of something that is not open to choice even if you were "good at it"; in short, being good at something does not change the moral status of that thing, so you can't just extend this to homosexuality before you show that our arguments are wrong, or that your arguments are right. You do understand "circular reasoning", don't you?)

You are 100% right on this, and I appologise for my previous statements that said otherwise.

So? The question is: is career choice of murdering people per se open to him? Murder and killing are not the same thing - and the one i meant is the one i said (when you kill in defence, you are NOT a murderer). You change context, as usual, to escape. You are becoming good at this, LaVache?

I did not say that the career choice of murdering people was open to him, just that if he had a talent set that would allow him to be good at murder that he would be able to use the exact same skills for something that is moral. It would be irrational for him to use his skills in an immoral endevour, but enjoyable, or at least fulfilling for him to use those skills in the defense of his country.

[LaVache]

Of the nature of a man as distinct from an animal, yes. Of the nature of a man as distinct from a woman, no. Women can think too, or do you disagree with that? (Hey, the Pleistocene is over, etc., what not...)

Women can absolutely think . I read something wrong before I posted.

A more reading comprehension friendly (doh ) argument would ask you whether or not you think that the level of physical strength and undauntedness is the most important distinction between a man and a woman? Definitionally would you say that a woman is like a man except less strong and more daunted?

Somebody's got to take that shirt off her.

What came to mind when I wrote "shirt ripping" was a picture of some Hulk Hogan type guy ripping his shirt to shreds to impress and arouse his wife before sex with his manly manfulness.

[FeatherFall]

1. are you a man? 2. are you a rational (and independent) person? (I think you are). 3. would you be proud (and happy) to be the man in my 'couple 2' example?

Consensus is not a fact-based exercise, and this "poll" of yours will not settle this issue. For the record, I am a man, and while nobody (including me, or any other man or woman) should be comforted by the fact that they cannot afford a house or a honeymoon, I can afford neither right now. But, if a beautiful, rich, rational woman swept me off of my feet, I would marry her and allow her to cover the expenses. I imagine I would be smitten.

But hypothetical examples and polls regarding individual values (such as this poll) will not get us anywhere. Show me how a woman can not find another woman to be the object of her hero-worship, and show me how a man can not find another man to be the object of his. Please.

[blackdiamond]

Consensus is not a fact-based exercise,

Who's trying to get consensus? Just trying to observe the introspections of rational people, that's all.

and this "poll" of yours will not settle this issue. For the record, I am a man, and while nobody (including me, or any other man or woman) should be comforted by the fact that they cannot afford a house or a honeymoon, I can afford neither right now.

Why don't we wait for the women to answer for themselves instead of "imposing your value contexts" on them?

Secondly, stick to the hypothetical situation, Featherfall. The discomfort is not just about not affording, but allowing another person "to afford" for you, while you just enjoy the wedding, honeymoon, etc. I repeat the question: would the rational woman feel this discomfort - about the fact that she is marrying someone who can afford to sponsor the honeymoon/wedding/house/car when she can't? That's the context.

But hypothetical examples and polls regarding individual values (such as this poll) will not get us anywhere.

And you know that how?

[Your circular reasoning here is assuming that these are just random "individual values" that have nothing whatsoever to do with the gender of the individual - which is what we are currently investigating - hence, the 'circularity'.]

But, if a beautiful, rich, rational woman swept me off of my feet, I would marry her and allow her to cover the expenses. I imagine I would be smitten.

I know you don't like being accused of evasion, so i won't do it now!

However, i did not ask whether you would marry such a woman or whether you would allow her to cover the said expenses (personally, i wouldn't and i don't know any man in my country who would without wanting the fact to be hidden, but that's besides the point right now.). Anyway, read my question again to get exactly what i asked.

Secondly, observe that you end that statement with "i imagine i would be smitten". You are trying to say, i think, that your love for her has to be so strong ("swept off my feet", "smitten") that you would not mind this situation (or else there would have been no need to add that last sentence, especially after already saying "swept off my feet"). But a woman (rational or not), i believe, would not need any such strong qualifier before she feels comfortable with this kind of situation. In fact, she would proudly tell her family, friends, everyone, about this situation - whether or not she is absolutely 'smitten'. But would you? (without being 'swept off your feet' and 'smitten' into a comfortable state? interestingly, they say love is a 'drug'! Hm.)

Meanwhile, those who have not taken this little 'poll' (and are willing to) could still do so now (before we get lost in the maze of the debate), please? Hunterrose? LaVache? Q? RC? (Styles and GC, i would have preferred you answered the hypothetical question as it is. Thanks. And oh, perhaps you could be kind enough to also ask your good wives the same question - exactly as it is in the hypothetical situation - just when you are getting married? that would be really helpful.)

[Qwertz]

Meanwhile, those who have not taken this little 'poll' (and are willing to) could still do so now

Yes, yes, and it depends.

[Your circular reasoning here is assuming that these are just random "individual values" that have nothing whatsoever to do with the gender of the individual - which is what we are currently investigating - hence, the 'circularity'.]

But you haven't exactly established that they conclusively do have anything whatsoever to do with each other.

But a woman (rational or not), i believe, would not need any such strong qualifier before she feels comfortable with this kind of situation. In fact, she would proudly tell her family, friends, everyone, about this situation - whether or not she is absolutely 'smitten'.

How much of this has to do with social pressures and upbringing, and how much to do with her anatomy?

-Q

[Capitalism Forever]

A more reading comprehension friendly (doh ) argument would ask you whether or not you think that the level of physical strength and undauntedness is the most important distinction between a man and a woman? Definitionally would you say that a woman is like a man except less strong and more daunted?

Men are sometimes called "the stronger sex," and women "the fairer sex." I think this summarizes the difference pretty well. In an ideal case, both the man and the woman brings a lot of mental and moral strength to the relationship (because they are both good at that); in addition, the man brings the strong muscles, the booming voice, the quick step, etc. (because that's what his body is good at), while the woman adds the gentle touch and the swinging hip--because that's what her body is good at.

[blackdiamond]

But you haven't exactly established that they conclusively do have anything whatsoever to do with each other.

Hence my statement: "...which is what we are currently investigating". This is part of the process, so you can not use your conclusion - just like i can not - in judging the usefulness of the process itself or in establishing the (same) conclusion. Q, you really do need to read up on 'circular reasoning'.

How much of this has to do with social pressures and upbringing, and how much to do with her anatomy?

Once again, that's what we are investigating. The people being asked this question - including you - are presumably rational and independent, which partly means that they do not behave according to "social pressures", but according to their own independent judgment. Or do you? You've never questioned the irrational parts of your upbringing? It's contradictory for you to call yourself 'rational and independent' - your answer in my poll - and to then virtually attribute your behaviour and values to social pressures, even to the slightest degree.

[it seems this "social pressures" thing will keep coming up. I really would like to ask rational women a number of other questions, like: do you actually feel so pressured by society into beautifying yourself and spending so much time in the mirror that if you had your way you would certainly stop doing this - like some Muslim women do when they have the chance to put off their black masks - er, veils? is that your situation with your behaviours, attitudes and values in relationships? and the men, too? Do you wish you were in a society where they did not (irrationally?) expect you to be "the man" - the strong one, the security provider, etc - in your relationship? Do you wish for "freedom" from the pressures of society?]

Such questions (and 'polls'), Qwertz and Featherfall, can at least come close to establishing whether these things are just issues of "social pressures" or not. Think about it.

[Kevin]

I hope my non-participation in this thread up to now doesn't prohibit me polling rights. My answers to all three questions would be yes. In fact, a women who makes a good deal of money would probably have an advantage over one who didn't. I'm a classical musician, and I love my work, but will almost certainly never be wealthy from it. The ability to engage in this profession that I love and maintain an affluent lifestyle seems like a pretty good thing to me. And I would assume (hope) that the non-monetary benefits my wife derives from our relationship would more than balance out the equation, so there would be no cause to feel like a drain or a moocher.