Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Homosexuality vs. Heterosexuality

Rate this topic


RationalEgoistSG

Recommended Posts

Being a model is productive, since one is paid for it. Being a "trophy wife" isn't.

It isn't necessarily so for a woman. A woman can use her body in another way, which may be more efficient for her: she can create "aesthetic wealth," which rational men value, and are willing to gain and keep by sharing their "$$$ wealth" with her.

See above. :)

So now you seem to be basically saying marriage should be a form of prostitution, or at least that a wife's primary role should be decorative. :D

For me (and my wife) productive work is not a specifically masculine virtue; it is something all rational people should engage in. I would have no interest in marrying a woman who did not want to do something productive with her time; in fact it would be a huge turnoff as it would suggest a serious character flaw.

Ayn Rand addressed this issue specifically in her Playboy interview by the way:

PLAYBOY: Do you believe that women as well as men should organize their lives around work--and if so, what kind of work?

RAND: Of course. I believe that women are human beings. What is proper for a man is proper for a woman. ... There is no particular work that is specifically feminine. ...

(Playboy, March 1964, reprinted as a pamphlet by The Intellectual Activist)

As for the difference in views of male and female roles in different countries, I think the split is mostly between the "liberal" parts of western countries (including the US, Canada, UK, France, etc) and everyone else. I think the liberals got this one mostly right and the conservatives mostly wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Because I have asked the question regarding the object of hero worship three times, in three different ways, I have to conclude that you are unwilling to answer it, or incapable. I will ignore your further posts in this thread unless you decide to address my question or introduce your 'new idea'. If you choose to do either, please PM me.

Since i do not want Featherfall to ignore my posts any more :D , i will answer the question he asked.

Why can't a woman "hero worship" another woman's femininity? Because she has it, too. (There's another reason, but this will suffice - until i introduce my 'new idea'!).

Why can't a man "hero worship" another man's masculinity? Because he has it, too.

[if there was something uniquely powerful and special about white people, for example, would you expect a white person to hero-worship another white person - with the object of his hero-worship being specifically the 'whiteness' of the other person, which he also possesses? Would you not rather expect only a non-white person to 'hero worship' a white person in such a case?]

Edited by blackdiamond
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for answering. I get lonely, here in the data stream.

Since i do not want Featherfall to ignore my posts any more :D , i will answer the question he asked.

Why can't a woman "hero worship" another woman's femininity? Because she has it, too. (There's another reason, but this will suffice - until i introduce my 'new idea'!).

Why can't a man "hero worship" another man's masculinity? Because he has it, too.

For the rest of this post, when I type "hero-worship" I mean it in the androgynous sense, and when I type"hero/heroine-worship" it implies a strict gender sense.

Ayn Rand held that the essential characteristic of femininity is either hero-worship or hero-worship. The context of her quote seems to be that she supports the notion of the latter.

If the essential characteristic of femininity is hero-worship, we can assume that the essential characteristic of masculinity is hero-worship. You clearly reject this idea. If it is true, then the concepts of masculinity and femininity are split to satisfy social custom.

If the essential characteristic of femininity is hero-worship, then we assume the essential characteristic of masculinity is heroine-worship. This would exclude homosexuals from being feminine or masculine. Your last post shows that you support this position. But this position necessitates the creation of a new word, or at least a new concept - new in the sense that it is distinguished from femininity/masculinity and defined objectively: romantic androgynous hero-worship. The truth or falsehood of this notion applies to the title of the thread, but it does not speak to the spirit of the thread (as outlined in the first post), which is about morality.

In order to show that homosexuality is immoral, the task is no longer to prove that a is masculine neither masculine or feminine (Ayn Rand would seem to contend). The task becomes, show that androgynous romantic hero-worship is anti-life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Styles, i am not misreading you and i am not putting words into your mouth: these are words in my own mouth :D . I did not say that you did not think before making your decision (how could i insult you like that, Styles). I know you did think, but it was after she pointed out that "the important thing is the time we spend together and not who pays", or words to that effect. You say that this statement from her pointed out your irrationality. Forgive me, but I simply can't see how it did that, and it is the purpose of this (stage of the) discussion to establish if indeed you were being irrational or not, qua man. Perhaps you could tell us how her statement logically established your irrationality and we can move on. "Pointing out" your irrationality does not mean just stating her opinion.

Ah, so what you are now telling us is that your wife would only see this irrationality when it's in another person (like you), and yet she is the same herself? So, it appears the argument she gave you was only because she was not the one in the "reversed" role - she doesn't actually believe that "it doesn't matter who pays, it's the time spent together"?

Yes. She does. And just like any contradiction in one's life, I wasn't happy until I let that silly thing go. If she was in the reversed role she would not have cared, she would have been the same as me. In other words, if you're with a woman, just so that you can pay for her dinner, you should probably rethink your relationship. Again, you cannot prove ANYTHING by simplifying a relationship down to money.

It isn't necessarily so for a woman.

So there's a double standard?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the essential characteristic of femininity is hero-worship, we can assume that the essential characteristic of masculinity is hero-worship. You clearly reject this idea. If it is true, then the concepts of masculinity and femininity are split to satisfy social custom.

If "the essential characteristic" of femininity is hero worship and "the essential characteristic" of masculinity is hero-worship (both in the 'androgenous sense'), then why have two words (masculinity and femininity)? Are you saying they are defined (or differentiated) by non-essentials?

If the essential characteristic of femininity is hero-worship, then we assume the essential characteristic of masculinity is heroine-worship.

a non-sequitur.

In order to show that homosexuality is immoral, the task is no longer to prove that a is masculine neither masculine or feminine (Ayn Rand would seem to contend). The task becomes, show that androgynous romantic hero-worship is anti-life.

(The incoherence of your first sentence aside), you have assumed that the essence of masculinity is heroine worship and built the rest of your argument from that premise. But the premise is a non-sequitur (it doesn't follow in any way from "the essence of femininity is hero-worship"), therefore the rest of your argument is a non-sequitur - no matter what you are trying to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. She does. And just like any contradiction in one's life, I wasn't happy until I let that silly thing go. If she was in the reversed role she would not have cared, she would have been the same as me

Styles, you said she would have cared if she was in the reversed role (because of her pride). Now you say she wouldn't have cared if she was in the reversed role. Am i "misreading" you again?

And i asked you to explain for us how her statement logically convinced you that you were wrong in feeling the way you felt in the first place, or do you get convinced just by the assertion of a different opinion?

[i know you have said "And just like any contradiction in one's life, I wasn't happy until I let that silly thing go", so i am guessing that you believe "that thing" was wrong since you felt happy when you let it go. But what if you let go of the wrong thing? (for there to be a "contradiction" there have to be two things contradicting each other). The "contradiction" would have still disappeared (and you would have felt happy) if you let go of the other thing instead of the thing that you let go, no? so how did you establish that you did the right thing from the statement she made to you?]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Styles, you said she would have cared if she was in the reversed role (because of her pride). Now you say she wouldn't have cared if she was in the reversed role. Am i "misreading" you again?

Yes, when I stated that she is proud I was talking about being seperate/distinct productive entities. Just as I would not want to feel dependant on her, she would not want to feel dependant on me. HOWEVER, in terms of a relationship and how the money is spent (or where it comes from) it really doesn't matter, because the investment is not the MONEY but the time spent with a loved one (which is the logic for you second question and how we BOTH came to it). Allow me to add that I was not broken up over her paying instead of me...it was just a thought in the back of my mind, I had already come to the conclusion that it was alright (she just put the final nail in the board, so to speak). Now the difference in morality (at least, the way I see it), is if I never tried to pay (and the same with her). When I had the money, I'd do something special for her (since she was of value to me). I think the immorality is when one EXPECTS the other to pay (regardless of the sex). What I valued in her was her productive/intelligent mind, not how much money she makes or whether she flaunts it.

And i asked you to explain for us how her statement logically convinced you that you were wrong in feeling the way you felt in the first place, or do you get convinced just by the assertion of a different opinion?

See above

[i know you have said "And just like any contradiction in one's life, I wasn't happy until I let that silly thing go", so i am guessing that you believe "that thing" was wrong since you felt happy when you let it go. But what if you let go of the wrong thing? (for there to be a "contradiction" there have to be two things contradicting each other). The "contradiction" would have still disappeared (and you would have felt happy) if you let go of the other thing instead of the thing that you let go, no? so how did you establish that you did the right thing from the statement she made to you?]

Could I have been happy either way? Well, let's see. If I had chosen that it was 'immoral' for her to pay for me. We'd have broken up...I'd more than likely still be single right now. I suppose I could've been happy like that...however, now I'm married, have a WONDERFUL marriage with a beautiful, intelligent woman who is on equal terms with me and we have a child due this month. I much think that I'm happier with the choice I made.

Out of curiousity, are you married or have you ever been?

Edited by Styles2112
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If "the essential characteristic" of femininity is hero worship and "the essential characteristic" of masculinity is hero-worship (both in the 'androgenous sense'), then why have two words (masculinity and femininity)? Are you saying they are defined (or differentiated) by non-essentials?
At worst it would be a definition by non-essentials. At best it would be a linguistic anomaly that accepts different gender forms of the same concept. This often occurs in languages like French, and sometimes in English. But I am not convinced that this is the correct way of looking at it.

a non-sequitur.
Maybe. But it is up to you to give a proper definition of masculinity that is consistent with Ayn Rand's definition of femininity. The definition of masculinity/femininity is at the heart of your argument, and defining both properly can only assist in proving your case (if your case is correct). So far, the definition I have given is compatible with Ayn Rand's statements on femininity. In the absence of a new definition for masculinity, and if I am guilty of a non sequitur, I have no choice but to accept the androgynous forms of the words and accept an anomalous linguistic gender split.

(The incoherence of your first sentence aside), you have assumed that the essence of masculinity is heroine worship and built the rest of your argument from that premise. But the premise is a non-sequitur (it doesn't follow in any way from "the essence of femininity is hero-worship"), therefore the rest of your argument is a non-sequitur - no matter what you are trying to say.
Apologies. The wrong word was deleted during editing. I should have also added the letter "N." The sentence should should have read like this:

In order to show that homosexuality is immoral, the task is no longer to prove that a homosexual is masculine neither masculine nor feminine...

This follows from the previous statement of mine that you believe to be a non sequitur. But again, it is still up to you to give a proper definition of masculinity that is consistent with femininity - one that is different from the two I have presented. Good luck, you'll need it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the essential characteristic of femininity is hero-worship, then we assume the essential characteristic of masculinity is heroine-worship.

Hello? Didn't you listen when I was over this before? Saying that femininity means hero-worship does NOT say that masculinity is heronine-worship. I severely disagree that it would be. Masculinity is strength; i.e. BEING A MAN, not worshipping a woman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello? Didn't you listen when I was over this before? Saying that femininity means hero-worship does NOT say that masculinity is heronine-worship. I severely disagree that it would be. Masculinity is strength; i.e. BEING A MAN, not worshipping a woman.
Which posts are you referring to? As I've said before, it helps to refer back to the specific number, because of the length of this thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So far, the definition I have given is compatible with Ayn Rand's statements on femininity.

Why?

Let's see. So, if someone said, for example, "the essential characteristic of children is 'to look up' to adults" then in the absence of a definition for adulthood, you would think it consistent/compatible to just "assume" that "the essential characteristic of adults is (therefore) to 'look up to' children"?

In other words, Featherfall, you would have to know what it is that makes hero worship the essence of femininity before you just derive from it a random definition of masculinity and claim the two to be compatible.

[For the rest of your querries on this particular issue, consult with Inspector].

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello? Didn't you listen when I was over this before? Saying that femininity means hero-worship does NOT say that masculinity is heronine-worship. I severely disagree that it would be. Masculinity is strength; i.e. BEING A MAN, not worshipping a woman.

What is strength? Physical strength? mental strength? Are women not strong? What is strength?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we are still on topic. The core of this issue is what masculinity and femininity are. Once we understand that, we can understand the proper nature of male-female romantic relationships and then consider whether same-sex romantic relationships might be proper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've lost track of this thread, but the recent posts seem to indicate a shift of topic.

If so, could someone suggest a point at which to spilt it into another thread.

If not, ignore this post. :)

Actually, I thought about starting a new thread myself. I don't think this topic can be discussed properly until the masculinity/femininity subject is resolved, as for which post to split it, I am at a loss. Masculinity/femininity was brought up very early in the thread.

I think this topic needs to be explored further. Inspector has said that Strength is a more fundamental characteristic of masculinity than heroine or hero worship. But I think this is incorrect. For two people to love each other, they must have commensurate values. Hero (or heroine) worship is the value that must be shown in either partner to allow for romantic relationships.

But if a value is something that one acts to gain or keep, then hero worship is meaningless if it is simply the notion that "heroes are good." The values one holds must be consistent with the actions one takes. Hence, when one takes action to build strength (both of physique and character), competence, a dignified appearance, wealth, etc., they are engaging in hero worship.

Both men and women can recognize someone who consistently engages in such actions. That's where we get the common notion of masculinity. I think that the common notion of femininity has been corrupted by women's traditional subservient role, so that when people say it, they are not speaking of hero-worship, but of some floating abstraction.

I sense a soul-body dichotomy creeping into this thread when I see the results of values (strength) divorced from the values themselves (hero-worship).

Edited by FeatherFall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which posts are you referring to? As I've said before, it helps to refer back to the specific number, because of the length of this thread.

Post #710 and the discussion that followed it, as well as post #229 here. Actually, I can see how you might miss that.

Edited by Inspector
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this topic needs to be explored further. Inspector has said that Strength is a more fundamental characteristic of masculinity than heroine or hero worship. But I think this is incorrect. For two people to love each other, they must have commensurate values. Hero (or heroine) worship is the value that must be shown in either partner to allow for romantic relationships.

I strongly, strongly disagree. There is nothing masculine about worshipping anything, heroes, heroines, or otherwise. Masculinity is about "being a man," i.e. being manly; emphasizing those characteristics which differentiate one from the feminine, the female. The essence of masculinity must logically be something very much unlike the essence of femininity.

This all fits with every "common sense" description of masculinity, by the way.

To answer Styles' question, "what kind of strength?" my answer would be "any kind of strength." As to "why strength," the answer is that strength is the distinguishing difference between man and woman.

Don't focus on the similarities between men and women; don't look at what we have in common. Yes, we both have minds and free will and reasoning, etc. But the question is what is man built for, when compared to woman? What is he better at, when compared to woman? I.E., what makes him a man qua male animal, rather than man qua rational animal?

The answer, as a basic starting point, is: strength. This is something that Ayn Rand understood greatly, and I wish I had the right quotes. There are some of them in the thread about the woman president, but I know there are more out there.

But work from that starting point, and you will find the rest.

(addendum: it has been asked, "Shouldn't it be the goal of everyone, not just men, to be heroic?" Yes, of course. But men enjoy the additional bonus that in striving to be heroic, they are not only being good humans, but they are being men. A woman who acts heroically is not more feminine for doing so, even though it is virtuous for other reasons.)

I've lost track of this thread, but the recent posts seem to indicate a shift of topic.

If so, could someone suggest a point at which to spilt it into another thread.

If not, ignore this post. :)

I agree. It changed topic when it stopped being about homosexuality and started being about masculinity and femininity (several pages ago). Granted, that does lead into the topic but it would help to make them separate threads. It's not so... labyrinthine that way.

Edited by Inspector
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've lost track of this thread, but the recent posts seem to indicate a shift of topic. If so, could someone suggest a point at which to spilt it into another thread.

Already discovered 14 pages ago (when the title was simply "Homosexuality") :)

Well, it started out as a discussion of homosexuality (and long before I was even a member of this board), so I kept it as the first word of the title, but added a reference to heterosexuality and a description line to make it more reflective of the thread's actual content.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(addendum: it has been asked, "Shouldn't it be the goal of everyone, not just men, to be heroic?" Yes, of course. But men enjoy the additional bonus that in striving to be heroic, they are not only being good humans, but they are being men. A woman who acts heroically is not more feminine for doing so, even though it is virtuous for other reasons.)

So, Men are inherently better than women?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without commenting on your other opinions in this thread, I do not agree that it follows that a man should in turn worship a woman. It would be more logical to say that the essence of masculinity is to be heroic. I've never thought of a hero as worshiping anything but himself.
I think that we should define worship if we are going to continue to discuss femininity. worship: extravagant respect, adoration or devotion to an object of esteem.

The concept of heroism is so grand that I submit it cannot be valued short of extravagant respect or devotion. Because mind and body are integrated, by being heroic, one is expressing that one values heroism. If one values something, one acts to achieve that value. In other words, the extent that one shows heroism is the extent they are engaging in hero-worship as a principle. How this is expressed will change from person to person, but generalizations can be made of men and women.

Physical strength, for instance, is typically contained in smaller form among females. Among males, it is typically less restrained. The styles of dress that emphasize strength are different because of this.

In the sense of a romantic relationship, one worships a specific hero. It involves recognizing the traits of the individual that stem from his or her hero-worship, then acting to obtain and keep that person as a partner. The physical expression of these traits vary between genders. The mental traits that one recognizes for worship are the same for both males and females.

Making dinner, giving a back rub, buying gifts and writing poetry are all ways one can engage in the worship of a partner. Men do it, women do it. In fact, its a necessary part of any romantic relationship, and its necessary for both sides to engage in it.

When one worships one's partner, one is worshiping the total of their being. Physically, one revels in the sensual aspect of their body, taking pleasure from their form and health. Mentally, one revels in the sum of the partner's values - the most important of which is their estimation of man. For rational lovers, they will have high esteem for man. So high, in fact, that it is considered extravagant respect or adoration -- worship.

From different thread, About a Woman President:

One, everyone pay attention to exactly what Jennifer is saying here. It's what I've been trying to emphasize and I hope it can sink in: [hero worship is] the essence of woman QUA ROMANCE AND SEXUALITY. This is exactly spot on.

Now, I'd just like to add that mostly young boys engage in hero worship. I don't know of too many men who take it to the point of worship. It's more admiration. A man sees a hero and says, "Right on! I like that and want to be like that." I just don't think it's manly to take it any farther than that. It's a salute, not worship.

I disagree. If a man esteems his wife properly, he worships her.

There is nothing masculine about worshiping anything, heroes, heroines, or otherwise. Masculinity is about "being a man," i.e. being manly; emphasizing those characteristics which differentiate one from the feminine, the female. The essence of masculinity must logically be something very much unlike the essence of femininity.
Ayn Rand often said that her philosophy was one where man is a heroic being. Thus, to be manly is to be heroic. If one is heroic, that means that one values heroism. If one is masculine, one engages in hero-worship.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not agree that it follows that a man should in turn worship a woman. It would be more logical to say that the essence of masculinity is to be heroic. I've never thought of a hero as worshipping anything but himself.
A man sees a hero and says, "Right on! I like that and want to be like that." I just don't think it manly to take it any farther than that. It's a salute, not worship.

Very, very interesting :) Kudos for presenting a starting point for what the nature of masculinity is. Now we have that to go along with the idea of femininity as hero-worship.

CF, blackdiamond, would you agree that the essence of masculinity is to be heroic, and femininity is hero-worship (or at least that they're good starting points?) In a sense, it works well with the complementarity argument.

I myself am undecided. I think a definition of "hero" and "hero-worshipper" would benefit the discussion. Hopefully, a good definition of the terms will suggest answers to these pending thoughts:

Are these things mutually exclusive? If one can be a hero and hero-worshipper, then it's difficult to say that a person should not ideally desire a hero-and-worshipper of either gender. But even if that were true, it might be said that being a worshipper should be of overriding importance to a woman, and being a hero of overriding importance to men, regardless of whether or not a person can be hero-and-worshipper - thus that a person's mate might be based on what complemented one's most important role.

Strength was given as a starting point for the gender distinction of these terms. Elaboration by anyone would be helpful (e.g. some females are stronger than most males, and yet, in order for gender roles to be relevant, something would have to suggest why such a strong woman should act against her individual nature and act like other [weaker] women?)

While I can imagine the idea that a hero-worshipper would/should desire a hero for a mate, I don't hold that unquestionably. And I really don't know that a hero would/should necessarily desire a hero-worshipper for a mate. I would think that some heroes might not want to be hero-worshipped, and if that were so, then it'd greatly diminish the case that a male should want a female.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hunerrose, I think we posted at near exactly the same time. I contend in my previous post that if one is to be heroic, one must engage in hero-worship. I use the rejection of the mind-body dichotomy to justify rejecting any split between heroism and hero-worship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, Men are inherently better than women?

I said that men enjoyed a particular advantage - that they can emphasize their masculinity through behavior that is already necessary for their life. To take that statement and get from it your statement is a major leap. I said nothing of the sort.

That would be like my saying that men enjoy the advantage of being able to pee standing up... and having you respond with the same.

:dough:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that we should define worship if we are going to continue to discuss femininity. worship: extravagant respect, adoration or devotion to an object of esteem.

You are not using this definition in the rest of your post. You are using the term "worship" interchangably with "value," and as a result have written something that I highly, completely disagree with.

No, when one is striving to be a hero, this is not an act of "hero-worship." Masculinity does not involve adoration or devotion to anyone or anything. A man in a romantic relationship could and often should adore and be devoted to his woman... but that is not a masculinity-enhancing activity. In fact, if he takes it too far, it is a masculinity-removing activity. (and all of his male friends will make fun of him for it)

You need to immediately stop conflating "value" and "worship." Worship is a devotion to something superior to oneself. That isn't masculine.

Strength was given as a starting point for the gender distinction of these terms. Elaboration by anyone would be helpful (e.g. some females are stronger than most males, and yet, in order for gender roles to be relevant, something would have to suggest why such a strong woman should act against her individual nature and act like other [weaker] women?)

I would speculate that a very large/strong woman wouldn't (and couldn't successfully) try to be/act weaker/smaller. She would seek to find a man who is bigger/stronger than her. Yes, this does make her pool of potential mates smaller. But them's the breaks. The same could be said for anyone who's off the major part of the bell curve in almost any way.

Link to comment
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...