Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Homosexuality vs. Heterosexuality

Rate this topic


RationalEgoistSG

Recommended Posts

Prepare to be surprised. I am a female who likes men, currently in a longstanding relationship, and I find your description of female sexual psychology fits me not at all.

Yay, no need for me to go hunt down a strictly heterosexual female friend or friend of friend now to act as a "legitimate" example party of not fitting that idea.

The whole male dominance vs female submission theme is itself a fetish.

For most people who support this, it would probably be a weak one, but I agree I can't much see the sense in it or well see how it should be distinguished from the kind that is already being accepted as counting as a fetish.

To blackdiamond:

I didn't take the rape thing as your entire argument, but it was one rather disturbing side element of it. Rape was in parenthesis, yes, but isn't that what the nearby stuff out of parenthesis adds up to still anyway? That the male could take over any time he decides to and only doesn't at any particular time because he doesn't feel like it and any control the woman seems to have is just by his permission? You seem to be saying that the woman cannot maintain any form of dominance in the situation if the guy doesn't feel like her having it whereas whether she likes it or not he can. If they aren't both able equally to deny dominance to the other and either one is seen as in a position to force an exertion of dominance in the sexual situation doesn't that mean rape? Otherwise the other person could end the dominance by simply saying to them "You know what? Nope, I'm not interested in this," and up and leaving and it ending there. If the other, physically stronger person though is just as much recognized as bound to respect the wishes of the other person as the weaker one is, than how is it ever a less valid case of dominance no matter who is acting it out since both of them are equally acting through permission of the other? As for the CEO analogy, the CEO has rights that can be protected by force to make the CFO step back down whether they want to or not. If the CEO is the male and the CFO is the female here, this has some problems as an analogy because the male does not have a right to at any point make the female go back to accepting him having power over her while the CFO may have signed a contract making them accept it. The female in a heterosexual relationship though even if she may be denied continued dominance over the male still doesn't have any requirement to let the male go on dominating over her. If he decides he wants to go back to acting dominant over her and she doesn't like it, she can just leave him. I think in any case that both parties in a relationship, as long as they aren't denying each other's rights, are both ultimately the highest authority over themselves and that anybody who at any point acts in any way "dominant" over them is still only doing so by permission which they retain the right to revoke at any time, thus making them still always the final authority and dominant one over their own life in all aspects.

"I was explaining what I think is the source of this very common feeling in women." And I was trying to say why there's no rational reason today in modern society generally for your hypothesis to work. There are far too many ways for physical strength differences to be easily, quickly, and even cheaply overcome for being a little less physically strong to be reason to feel like you need a body guard against those physically stronger than you. More than that though, the vast majority of people respect your rights too much to try to attack you even when they are stronger than you and when you will be in danger you will know enough ahead of time to be able to arm yourself before going into the dangerous situation and/or the attacker will not be relying on physical strength anyway but rather a weapon, meaning the physical strength still doesn't matter.

Now as for being hugged when scared, if this is a hug from a mate, sure that will be more reassuring than just some random passerby because your mate cares about you enough to go far out of their way to try to help make sure you'll be ok and they will be sticking around to follow up on your case and make sure you are indeed ok too. Now a more general case of just a friend that is male versus female, if the male is more reassuring typically, I'd only attribute that to the fact that more often the males are expected to put on a brave face whereas females are encouraged to flip out like the world is ending over every little thing, so the calmer one focused on not making it seem like you're just screwed would indeed be more reassuring than being hugged by somebody else who thinks things are awful and is now counting on you maybe as their hope to fix this mess for them. In other words simply, personality aspects, not physical aspects are what is more reassuring there. Those same personality aspects are not things that must be or only can be in either males or females, just the way things are males are encouraged to be one way in the face of possible bad stuff and females another way and since most people eat up this kind of stuff and internalize it, the result is more males one way and more females another. In all of this though I'm thinking more of a hug after something like your house was burned down or you've been shot at, not a bad dream like you suggested. Unless your dream was REALLY vivid and involved something like the person you hug dying, I don't see why you'd want to hug somebody after a bad dream. That's a case though more of hugging them out of appreciation of them and relief of their safety, not so much because you are still scared and need a hug to feel safer. Even given that females are more often encouraged to freak out over every little thing, could you imagine such a thing as something desirable for how females should be? Could you picture Dagny needing a hug after a dream about being chased by a monster or something? I couldn't. The good females aren't the ones who seem to be needy and in regular requirement of a male in order to reassure them. When the good ones see problems they can set out on solving them and protecting themselves just fine on their own.

Edited by bluecherry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yay, no need for me to go hunt down a strictly heterosexual female friend or friend of friend now to act as a "legitimate" example party of not fitting that idea.

Right. And indeed I am surprised to meet women who do not fully desire to be dominated sexually, or indeed desiring to fall into the arms of a man, or seeing that as a more natural desire than a man desiring to fall in their arms, for instance. I'm glad I didn't bet my rent money on it!

To blackdiamond:

I didn't take the rape thing as your entire argument, but it was one rather disturbing side element of it. Rape was in parenthesis, yes, but isn't that what the nearby stuff out of parenthesis adds up to still anyway? That the male could take over any time he decides to and only doesn't at any particular time because he doesn't feel like it and any control the woman seems to have is just by his permission? You seem to be saying that the woman cannot maintain any form of dominance in the situation if the guy doesn't feel like her having it whereas whether she likes it or not he can.

Look, this is not like a fight for dominance between the two. The sex is something they both want, and the woman is enjoying this experience of being dominated by someone whose tools are apparently designed for that. It's not like she feels "this is not fair, how come you get to dominate when you want to and I don't." She loves her position, it's natural, he's stronger, and she trusts him.

There is a metaphysical difference here.

Just to use a more extreme example of differences in strength, it would be like a dad playing a fight game with his child (only an example, not saying the woman is a child). The child can jump on top of the dad as he is down and they "wrestle" from that position, but we know that he is really still in control of this whole situation because of his superior strength. It is harder, though, for the child to just decide in what position they will next fall in as they fight. He can't do it without the father just basically leading himself into that position as he senses where the child wants him to go. This is the sense in which I used the word "permission" with respect to letting the woman take an apparent position of leadership in the act. She is still not really in control.

Let's change Brandonk's quote from Atlas Shrugged and see if it sounds normal : "When [she] threw [him] down on the bed, their bodies met..."

Now that would be an abnormal sentence in a realistic novel.

Now a more general case of just a friend that is male versus female, if the male is more reassuring typically, I'd only attribute that to the fact that more often the males are expected to put on a brave face whereas females are encouraged to flip out like the world is ending over every little thing...

Ok, finally we have different theories to compare. You believe that women act more scared and emotional (and even scream) in certain terrifying situations simply because society expects them to act that way?

So, in an Objectivist society of independent thinkers, women would be act just like men in this regard?

Or perhaps it is the men who will become like this?:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To the first part, do you maybe not get out much if you really have never before come across females who don't have that desire? I don't know, it says you are from a part of Africa I don't know much about, maybe around there they are mostly still more "traditional"? Ah well, doesn't matter much to the discussion at this point. Indeed good for you you did not make a bet on this. :P

You presented a scenario where the female was acting in the more dominant position and it was stopped because he didn't want it any longer, so I'd assume she was doing it in the first place there because that was in fact what she wanted to be doing at that time. For both of them though any semblance of dominance is all by permission essentially unless either or both of them don't respect the other's rights. Unless that happens either one is free to end the scenario. At least in the dad and kid scenario, the dad is not violating a kid's rights if he may restrain an unwilling kid for some reason. Not so with a situation with two adults. And unless the child is doing something pretty bad, I'd think even a dad wouldn't be very forceful with the kid to try very hard to subdue the kid when the kid would rather not be in that position.

"'When [she] threw [him] down on the bed, their bodies met...' Now that would be an abnormal sentence in a realistic novel." That really seems just wholly against the natural order of things to you? :) I am highly, highly skeptical of the idea that it is only because I am not exclusively attracted to men that I have many a time had a desire to do just that to men I've been attracted to, that I liked the idea of being the one throwing them down. Especially if they weren't entirely expecting it. :lol: Perhaps the token heterosexual non-submissive girl will come back and "legitimize" another claim for me? ;o

And as for the hug deal, as I said, it isn't just putting on a show of being more afraid strictly usually because as I said, I think they internalized the expectations after a while to basically make it ingrained in them as what they see as a normal thing about who they are even if it is ridiculous and they could change it if they tried. It's kind of like a black kid growing up hearing bad things about black people as a race (as opposed to anything related to a common culture among them) and developing self-loathing because they are black and think that's bad or a kid who grows up in a poor neighborhood and family and has lots of people around them talk about how they think "people who 'act smart' are just conceited and that they all just want to abuse the good ol' down to earth humble poor people who aren't as smart and who just can't help being unable to ever get themselves out of poverty" and so they basically stop trying to really understand much of anything in school and just throw up their hands and say they're stupid and that should be just fine, nobody should expect them to keep trying anymore and anybody who does better is just some blessed asshole. I think those girls probably by adulthood have invested quite a bit in the belief that they're just naturally terrified and in need of a security blanket, but it didn't have to be that way and if they really tried they could keep a more level head and not panic and needlessly jump to expectations of ridiculously far flung unlikely scenarios of bad things coming to pass. On the other hand though, note I did say that I think a lot of men today are really not as confident as they often have been encouraged to pretend to be too. I wish that a lot of that facade was really based on sincere belief by people who saw when they just didn't have the evidence to support extreme conclusions of horror. I think in our dream land of where a majority of people being like the Atlas Shrugged heroes, Objectivists who really know their stuff and have taken it seriously, you would get most people not being easily rattled and for good reason, seriously believing that either things aren't so bad or else that they are capable of handling the situation to deal with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I understand this. Would you classify Ayn Rand's statements on the issue as "Platonic essentialism?" (I'm not intimidating you with that question, I just want to be clear what you mean and how far it applies.)

I didn't think you were trying to intimidate me. I feel like I have a decent enough feel for the tone of your posts and I do not see you coming from anything more than a position of honest curiosity.

Honestly, yes, I do disagree with Rand on this issue, and I think she does border on gender essentialism, although not to the degree that I have seen expressed on this board by other posters (not picking on you btw, there are many and one in particular has been prolific in this thread's history). There is much about Rand's theories of sex that I wholeheartedly agree with, such as that sex is good, that in its best form it is the perfect union of mind and body, and that it ideally should be a response to values. But her interpretation of female sexuality has never made any sense to me. I do not have any doubt that SHE experienced her sexuality that way, and you know what, more power to her as there's nothing wrong with it. If you want to be a "traditional" woman in that sense (I'm using quotes because I don't think the word itself is good enough for the meaning I'm trying to convey but I think you understand) there is nothing wrong with that and I would not stop anyone from that. But many, many women do not experience sexuality in that way. I do not feel the hero-worship thing. I don't need a hero to worship, that's what I'm for. And I don't admire men for their masculinity, or at least not in the way Rand describes. I like masculinity well enough, but it's not the determinant of my desire so much as, I think, just the aesthetic form of a male is interesting to me (in a physical way). I should probably mention that I'm not with a "new man" or whatever they call those poor fellows these days. My mate (more like spouse at this point really) is a typical guy in that respect, big, furry, with a broad streak of Southern honor. I'm not with him because I want him to dominate me. Trust is a factor but I really think it is for men as well as for women. Women can get raped, but men can be lured into passing out and wake up alone with their valuables gone :) It's not as visceral, perhaps, but speaking of a long-term relationship I do think trust is equally necessary on both parts. I like my mate because he is a good companion, a wonderful friend, a trustworthy ally, and damn nice to look at. He's my protector if I ask him to be, but not by default...similarly I would rush in to defend him were he to be in a bind and not me.

One thing I'd like to address about your previous posts is you seem to be coming from the position that all men are stronger than all women. Certainly if you take the average of male strength, especially about the arms and shoulders, and compare it against the average of female strength, it will be more, but what does that really tell us? Not a lot, and especially not much about individuals. Given the incredible variation in society it is not really that far out of the realm of possibility that a couple gets together with similar levels of strength or at least general physical prowess. In my case that is true (my fella is not weak, I just happen to be very strong). And on top of that, even being strong doesn't necessarily make you a good fighter. It helps, sure, but a little training goes a long way. A 150 lb. guy can take out a guy with 50 lbs. on him if he knows what he's doing. Also I agree with bluecherry that who can kick whom's ass is not really something to build a relationship around.

I had more points but I think I'm just rambling now so I'll stop and maybe some further posting will focus my thoughts a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"'When [she] threw [him] down on the bed, their bodies met...' Now that would be an abnormal sentence in a realistic novel." That really seems just wholly against the natural order of things to you? :) I am highly, highly skeptical of the idea that it is only because I am not exclusively attracted to men that I have many a time had a desire to do just that to men I've been attracted to, that I liked the idea of being the one throwing them down. Especially if they weren't entirely expecting it. :lol: Perhaps the token heterosexual non-submissive girl will come back and "legitimize" another claim for me? ;o

Token straight butch happy to oblige LMAO Yes, I love throwing guys around, including and most especially my own, although I admit that with him being not so young anymore I am a little more careful with him now haha. And when I say I love throwing guys around I mean real guys with some meat on them. I have always been drawn to athletic guys, probably because I myself am athletic but also just because competent body movements are a beautiful thing to behold. I don't accept it's a given that it's going to do them any good against me though :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yay, more credibility lent to my claims. Thanks. :)

Honestly, yes, I do disagree with Rand on this issue, and I think she does border on gender essentialism, although not to the degree that I have seen expressed on this board by other posters (not picking on you btw, there are many and one in particular has been prolific in this thread's history). There is much about Rand's theories of sex that I wholeheartedly agree with, such as that sex is good, that in its best form it is the perfect union of mind and body, and that it ideally should be a response to values. But her interpretation of female sexuality has never made any sense to me.

I don't know about anybody else here, but personally I've never found ANY definition for the genders (masculinity and femininity) that seemed to really well meet the criteria of a good definition. They've always seemed vague and I've always found it wishy-washy what exactly they refer to. I've also found many, many people who just don't fit any given definition I've heard for them. I've never yet found either how if you don't fit the definition it hurts you beyond just other people who support that definition you don't fit treating you anywhere from oddly to quite badly. I see to some extent how people, particularly in cases like what is in this thread here, try to create definitions for gender based on looking at their physical form and typical results of behavior that at least coincide with similar forms. The thing is though, gender is very often used as a sort of prescriptive term, something about how people *should* be. What is there in typical views of masculinity or femininity though that would help somebody in life that wouldn't also help somebody of the other gender in life? Masculinity for example is often associated with courage, but isn't that good to have and a hindrance in your ability to deal with life if you don't have it whether you are male or female? Likewise with compassion which is generally associated with femininity, except that you could more easily deal without that one on a desert island than courage. Other things though which aren't much of a help or hindrance compared to any number of other possible personal quirks, like maybe a great fondness for shoes or golfing, they may be generally more common to males or females, but I see nothing but hurting real individual people when you try to say they must fit this average result of people of their sex when it comes to behavior. The prescription came about from what just so happen to be, so why beat up on somebody who just so happens to be something else? (Assuming still we're talking about stuff like shoes and golf, not presence or lack of general virtues.) Honestly, though I'm not completely settled on this question yet, I'm this close (*holds thumb and pointer about a half inch apart*) to concluding gender is an anti-concept along the lines of ethnicity. As an example of what I mean, to quote first the first entry on "ethnicity" in the Ayn Rand Lexicon:

“Ethnicity” is an anti-concept, used as a disguise for the word “racism”—and it has no clearly definable meaning . . . . The term “ethnicity” stresses the traditional, rather than the physiological characteristics of a group, such as language—but physiology, i.e., race, is involved . . . . So the advocacy of “ethnicity,” means racism plus tradition—i.e., racism plus conformity—i.e., racism plus staleness.

Now here's the adaptation I'm thinking of for gender:

“Gender” is an anti-concept, used as a disguise for the word “sexism”—and it has no clearly definable meaning . . . . The term “gender” stresses the traditional, rather than the physiological characteristics of a group, such as common clothing styles—but physiology, i.e., sex, is involved . . . . So the advocacy of “gender,” means sexism plus tradition—i.e., sexism plus conformity—i.e., sexism plus staleness.

Just an initial thought, that adaptation of the format of the problem with "ethnicity" to the problem with "gender." But they do seem similar to me. It is true in both cases that there are physical differences you can find and maybe it is arguable some races and/or genders will tend more toward certain things subtly due to some of the minor differences between the races and sexes. In any case though, does it matter much when dealing with specific individuals? If a person of race X has a higher IQ than the average of his race, does that mean he should be ridiculed for not fitting the racial average? (Of course not) Likewise should a female be ridiculed if she is very good at math whereas that is typically an area males are better in? (Again, of course not.)

Sure, males and females have physical differences and it's good to recognize that fact just like any other and treat it for what it is like any other (IE, you don't make your doctor's appointments with a gynecologist if you are male, that sort of thing) and it is great if you can be comfortable in your own skin, but this whole gender business has just always seemed like such unnecessary, burdensome, waste of time, junk for people to have to be dealing with. Can't we just try to be ourselves as best as we can, whatever that means so long as we uphold rationality? If you like people that have a hodge podge of traits more common among males or females do we really need a new term and all kinds of baggage to go along with it for that trait list or could we perhaps just recognize it as a list of traits you like and that you do have whatever specific sex you are looking for that you want to find them in even though there is nothing to stop them from being in at least some people of a different sex anyway?

One thing I'd like to address about your previous posts is you seem to be coming from the position that all men are stronger than all women. Certainly if you take the average of male strength, especially about the arms and shoulders, and compare it against the average of female strength, it will be more, but what does that really tell us? Not a lot, and especially not much about individuals. Given the incredible variation in society it is not really that far out of the realm of possibility that a couple gets together with similar levels of strength or at least general physical prowess. In my case that is true (my fella is not weak, I just happen to be very strong). And on top of that, even being strong doesn't necessarily make you a good fighter. It helps, sure, but a little training goes a long way. A 150 lb. guy can take out a guy with 50 lbs. on him if he knows what he's doing.

Indeed, I don't see any personality trait that is really impossible to come by outside of just one sex. Some may be more common in one sex than the other, but that's all. Since people who do stick to just one sex are not swayed by the presence of these traits when they are in that other sex (assuming we really are talking about bona fide heterosexuals and homosexuals and not just slightly bisexuals or people who just so happen to have never found what they wee looking for in that other sex before), the behavior aspect here in gender doesn't seem to be the essential issue in sexuality anyway. People may prefer things that are more common traits among that sex they happen to be attracted to, but the physical body parts still are really make or break for many people. So, I motion that what sex somebody is attracted to be seen less strongly in light of behavior and personality traits and instead increase focus on things in terms of the actual physical parts perhaps. Or in any case, it really doesn't seem to be adding up to have it be about somebody else's body type or "gender" in relation to some sort of supposed natural, born in relation it has to your own beyond making sure you aren't ending up with somebody who's behavior you can't stand or likewise vice versa. Yeah, that's about it for now. I've typed something much longer here than I intended to already. ^^;

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think gender is an anti-concept. It's very absurd to think so. Gender refers to distinct physiological differences. However, you may be able to apply that to the concepts of masculinity and femininity. In "About a Woman President" (it can be found in The Voice of Reason) Rand wrote:

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 toward all men.

The important part here is that Rand thinks that the concepts of masculinity and femininity are metaphysical concepts. This simply means that the essence of these concepts refer to the identities of men and women in existence, they are not cultural constructs. I think that this is correct, and a very important distinction needs to be made. Many traits we attribute to either masculine or feminine are cultural, and they can vary between cultures. Rand asserts that there is a metaphysical fact at the core of masculinity and at the core of femininity, and this cuts away much of the irrelevant traits imposed by society. (It's also important to note that Rand never specified in her published work, as far as I know, what the essential trait of masculinity is.)

Note that the essential trait of femininity in Rand's view is psychological. This makes a lot of sense and investigations into the psychological differences between genders proves it. However, if a girl grows up on a dessert island surrounded by only women, would she still have that psychological trait? I don't think so. Rand assumes that masculinity and femininity can only be actualized in contrast to each other. Yet I think that femininity can be actualized in relation to femininity only, and vice versa. My masculinity can be actualized in relation to other men.

My example is going to be a young boy who has an intense hero worship for an athlete. It seems like to me that young girls don't share the same fervor of hero worship as boys do. I think the image of ideal masculinity is what constitutes a boy's psychological view of what masculinity entails. And I think that this happens at an age when sexuality isn't necessarily a factor (for example, hero worship in 6 year old boys).

Simply put, I'm thinking that masculinity can be expressed in relation to other men. It does not require contrasting femininity to be expressed. A hypothetical example could be an entirely female culture. Despite the obvious viability problems involved, I think there would still be an essential metaphysical component to each woman that constitutes their femininity - without any sort of relation to a masculine figure. And the same would be true in a fully male culture.

Edited by brandonk2009
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Gender" as I've heard it used commonly these days is a term meant to cover masculinity and feminity whereas the physical types of "male" and "female" are filed under a person's "sex." (a regular noun form here referring to objects, not a noun form of a verb.)

I've seen that quote from Rand many times before and it just doesn't fit with my experience or that of many other females that I've found who also have grown up with plenty of both males and females around them too, not on some very restrictive island of all females or all males. As Themadkat said in an earlier post of hers, I'd also believe it may well have been how Rand felt, but that she may have been too quick to assume this was just how all females were psychologically except maybe some who had really been through the mental wringer with stuff like abuse or brain damage. I think it may also have been a much more prevalent view of many females due to the time period Rand was used to where things still mostly were more "traditional" in the sense of the woman sort of doing a bit of bowing down to the man who is supposed to be like the one leading their little group.

As for hero worship in kids and it more in males than females, have you ever stopped to notice the large absence of particularly inspiring female role models for young girls (if we assume here we're talking about these heroes as people the kids look up to)? For female figures in things young girls will be seeing, it seems to be pretty much limited to pop stars, and many of those aren't so grandly inspiring anyway. Though, there does seem to be a creepily strong fandom for many of the Disney channel singers among little girls these days . . . The marketing they do of those people these day . . . >_O; However, I think there's some trouble with arguing this here, "I think the image of ideal masculinity is what constitutes a boy's psychological view of what masculinity entails" since you can't really conclude what the *ideal* X is unless you first can say what the nature of X is.

I'm not trying to argue here that there's anything about presence or absence of males or females on some island you plunk them down on suddenly that would impede a person being able to be themselves still, I think homosexuals can go ahead and be themselves just fine and often I would never be able to distinguish them from heterosexuals unless they told me or showed up clearly involved with somebody the same sex as them (though the latter wouldn't rule out them being attracted to more than one sex.) I just find masculinity and femininity to have never been well defined, they seem to have no solid essential distinguishing characteristics and instead are like a hodge podge of reference to some physical differences, statistically more common traits, and some tacked on cultural traditions all balled up into a prescription for how people *should* be based on if they are male or female with little explanation for why, just an assertion that they *should* be some particular way and something is somehow wrong with them if they aren't.

Edited by bluecherry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My example is going to be a young boy who has an intense hero worship for an athlete. It seems like to me that young girls don't share the same fervor of hero worship as boys do. I think the image of ideal masculinity is what constitutes a boy's psychological view of what masculinity entails. And I think that this happens at an age when sexuality isn't necessarily a factor (for example, hero worship in 6 year old boys).

I never felt any type of hero-worship for an athlete or anyone in particular; I hate sports. Does that make me less masculine? I don't think masculinity or femininity is an important concept at all, except to show how society loves to impose and pigeonhole roles onto individuals. If a girl was into sports, she probably would hero-worship to the same extent as a boy. But girls aren't encouraged to enjoy sports like boys are. I think that is more a characteristic of enjoying physical activity rather than any gender thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never felt any type of hero-worship for an athlete or anyone in particular; I hate sports. Does that make me less masculine? I don't think masculinity or femininity is an important concept at all, except to show how society loves to impose and pigeonhole roles onto individuals. If a girl was into sports, she probably would hero-worship to the same extent as a boy. But girls aren't encouraged to enjoy sports like boys are. I think that is more a characteristic of enjoying physical activity rather than any gender thing.

That was only an example. I wasn't trying to imply that all boys had, or should have had, a hero who was an athlete. (I wouldn't say that I hate sports, but they are certainly not something I enjoy watching or participate in.) What I was trying to explain was my thought that children tend to emulate their heroes or those who they look up to in general, and that those heroes often form the basis of a person's views on what constitutes masculinity and femininity.

Masculinity and Femininity are important concepts only when you are discussing the nature of humans and how that determines what they should or should not do. I brought up the discussion of masculinity and femininity, only because some Objectivists seem to view homosexuality as an unnatural confusion between masculinity and femininity - and I just don't think that's the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was only an example. I wasn't trying to imply that all boys had, or should have had, a hero who was an athlete. (I wouldn't say that I hate sports, but they are certainly not something I enjoy watching or participate in.)

I understand what you mean, but I'm just pointing out why the concept of masculinity/femininity to me is not an important concept. It only can tell you how much of a man/woman a person is in comparison to the rest of society.

Masculinity and Femininity are important concepts only when you are discussing the nature of humans and how that determines what they should or should not do. I brought up the discussion of masculinity and femininity, only because some Objectivists seem to view homosexuality as an unnatural confusion between masculinity and femininity - and I just don't think that's the case.

I don't think masculinity and femininity have any importance whatsoever on the nature of man (humans, to avoid any confusion on what I meant). Of course, that viewpoint stems from what I think masculinity/femininity even is, I've heard/seen nothing to suggest that it is a metaphysical characteristic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After reading all this, specifically about the part where gender vs sex is discussed, it got me thinking. Along a train of thought. What if metaphysical absolutes and conscious choices both have less to do with sexuality? If so, what about the SUBconscious, the elements of our mind which are alterable by genetics and environment but which do not follow any given law, and which are in an indirect way a consequence of consciousness, though most certainly not simply decided upon? What if gender was due to the necessity of an EMOTIONAL dynamic?

I see the fitting of gender into sex as quite related to aesthetics, although not in the conventional sense of 'an aesthetic work'. The subconscious is something Ayn Rand just didn't discuss very often, and perhaps the key to sexuality lies in it. Perhaps, and this is just me bouncing ideas around, the relation of sex to reproduction is not merely in that one may lead to the other, but rather indicates another kind of evaluation? There are TWO primary functions in most other animals, and while Ayn Rand understands this, it seems almost as if the 'have sex and make children' part was discarded when it came to humans. This is an epistemic selection based on the kind of reasoning she already advocated, so it wasn't wrong. However, what if the subconscious represents something that binds human's essential relationship to reality with mechanisms allowing such interplay to occur?

I know this is deep stuff, so let me simply: What if there was more to the subconscious? What if there was no explicit value to sex except in terms of something subconscious, and what if there is a line of reasoning in issues relating to the concept of subconscious that ties our basic relation to reality to something more specific, IE our biological nature? Not saying sexuality and reproduction are directly causally related in philosophical terms, but they both have something related in them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know this is deep stuff, so let me simply: What if there was more to the subconscious? What if there was no explicit value to sex except in terms of something subconscious, and what if there is a line of reasoning in issues relating to the concept of subconscious that ties our basic relation to reality to something more specific, IE our biological nature? Not saying sexuality and reproduction are directly causally related in philosophical terms, but they both have something related in them.

Clearly sexuality is tied to reproduction. Humans are biological organisms and just like every other sexually-reproducing organism if we do not have sex there won't be any more of us. So selective pressure to have not only sex, but sex capable of yielding offspring, is going to be very strong. And indeed many of the things that men and women find attractive in each other, cross-culturally, are tied to indications of health and fitness.

BUT, and this is a very big but, humans have sex for many reasons that are not reproductive, and it has probably been so ever since humans arose. Sex serves a social bonding function in humans found in few other organisms. This actually reinforces the point that sex is in fact a response to values. So for the thinking person reproduction has taken a backseat to other considerations when it comes to sexuality, and that is probably a good thing. It has become much more about bonding, which is as it should be. We choose our own purpose in this life, and unlike other organisms we need not be bound to perpetuating ourselves endlessly for no particular reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very interesting discussion here. It's a topic that does demand some out-of the-box thinking (that bluecherry is so good at :D ) imo. The idea of gender as an anti-concept is very provocative.

Also, I agree with themadcat's "We choose our own purpose..... we need not be bound to perpetuating ourselves endlessly for no particular reason."

This all takes me back to the period I was going round asking everyone I knew this question :-

"Is there any reason (apart from the obvious ones) that a man, and a woman, are any different, and should be any different ?"

After many experiences and observations, it had started occurring to me that there was often/usually a greater difference between one specific man and man, or woman and woman, then there is superficially or historically, between the genders, ie, one man, and one woman.

Iow, I would often be closer, and find similarities, in all manner of ways to a woman (not necessarily in a relationship), and be on a different planet from a lot of other men. All such similarities, or dissimilarities, came back to my mind, and my emotions.

All that 'men are from mars, women from venus' stuff that came out a decade back, didn't ring true, and pissed me off with its collectivist premise. So I heard all the obvious replies: with the arguments from tradition, like 'hunter -gatherer / nurturing berry-picker' (or whatever), or muscle-strength (geez, we've got power steering now, y'know), or hormones, brain chemistry, etc, upbringing/conditioning, and all sorts of esoteric New Age stuff, and so on ad nauseum.

My response was, yes, folks; but, above all that, you have a Mind, don't you?

This was always the reason for my puzzlement and disappointment with Ayn Rand's view of the sexes in her essays. I followed her sharp criticism of Women's Libbers, and equality of the sexes, and typically she cut to the heart of THAT irrationality. Great.

I mean, that hero-worship quote posted above.

The uncompromising defender of Individualism; of volition and choice; and the independent, rational mind. But, here she was, being prescriptive and a little stereotypical, of femininity and masculinity. With a little collectivism, too, possibly?

It didn't follow, for me, and still doesn't. Though I've lost the disappointment.

Surely, (and without denying one's reality and nature), the MIND can and should transcend most differences - Reason is sexless - woman, or man can 'self- make their soul'. No?

In this increasingly information-based, knowledge-driven world, I make the claim, NOT that the line between the sexes is becoming blurred, or ever should, but that awareness, recognition, of the Individual, outside of his/her basic gender difference, is what needs growing emphasis and focus.

Or else we keep repeating Nature's boring old 'biological necessity', and Society's boring old traditional 'role-play' -- on and on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is irrational to understand, and respond to, one's own sexual attractions? Does that mean suppressing one's sexual fetishes is rational?

It may be most important for you to state your definition of a fetish.

Well, if you google for the different kinds of fetishes, you will see that it is a class composed of many weird fixations. Even without focusing my mind for an exact definition, the integration of these sorts of desires does not present a very rational picture to me; it does not present me with a picture of someone in control of his mind. Or more precisely, it does not give me the impression of a man who understands the source of his emotions. He's more like a slave to his whims.

But let's just google for a standard definition and see if from that we get a general sense of rationality.

Fetish. noun

1 a : an object (as a small stone carving of an animal) believed to have magical power to protect or aid its owner; broadly : a material object regarded with superstitious or extravagant trust or reverence b : an object of irrational reverence or obsessive devotion : prepossession c : an object or bodily part whose real or fantasied presence is psychologically necessary for sexual gratification and that is an object of fixation to the extent that it may interfere with complete sexual expression

2 : a rite or cult of fetish worshipers

3 : fixation

[From Merriam-Webster's online dictionary].

1c is obviously the one most applicable here and it doesn't look good even by itself, but the other definitions do also give a more general sense of the irrationality involved in the concept.

Edited by blackdiamond
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having a fetish "may" interfere with complete sexual expression. May is the key word there. Obviously, if you can't get off without rubbing your hand on a latex balloon, you want to work to train your mind to lose that fixation (or find someone else who likes balloons too.) Most fetishes are results of subconscious training people do to their minds. Some of the most irrational fetishes -are- a result of people surrendering their willpower and just following the 'whim' of their body, or of the moment. However, if a man who has a fetish for stockings and becomes aroused when his wife is in stockings, how is his fetish irrational? Through the use of this fetish his wife can signal to him covertly that she's interested in sex, or get him interested in sex when he isn't. The sharing of healthy fetishes can only lead to a stronger sexual bond, which leads to a stronger spiritual bond.

I agree with Bluecherry's analysis of masculine/feminine and gender. Apart from the physical differences there is very little difference between men and women that is not a result of environmental conditioning. This conditioning starts from birth. When you have a baby girl you dress her in pink, when you have a boy you dress him in blue. Everything you do and say to your child while raising bears the stigma of your particular bias for their gender. This is a good and natural part of raising a child, a child should have a gender identity, I don't believe we should all begin raising children androgynously. However since these values and behaviors are resultant from environmental forces, they can be changed. Sometimes they can be changed very easily, sometimes they are more difficult, however they are always changed voluntarily.

Christians today are trying to use psychology to manipulate the minds of homosexual men and women to try and 'excise the gay' out of them. The results are usually very poor. A truly interested man or woman could change his or her sexuality through the use of psychology, however it has to be done voluntarily. The main reason Christians give for why these people should change from gay to straight is guilt, and guilt is not a healthy emotion. Nor should the choice to be gay or straight be left up to emotion at all.

I do believe sexuality is a choice. It is definitely heavily influenced throughout childhood, from birth on. For some people a change can happen easily over time, whereas others don't even see how such a change is possible for themselves. This is neither a result of 'genetic' preferences, nor environmental psychological determinism. It is simply that some people made the choice at a very early age, and have since not had to question it. If this is the case for you, great! There is no reason to change something you are happy with. However, for others, the choice to be gay, straight, or bi has to do with rational judgement based on values.

To say that there is no way to choose sexual preference, for anybody, is to surrender volition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having a fetish "may" interfere with complete sexual expression. May is the key word there.

If we're going to argue from the precise wording of that definition, there is another key word that makes this problematic: the word 'necessary.'

"an object or bodily part whose real or fantasied presence is psychologically necessary for sexual gratification..."

In other words, if this thing is not there (really there or fantasied), there is no sexual gratification.

That doesn't seem psychologically healthy to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, if you google for the different kinds of fetishes, you will see that it is a class composed of many weird fixations. Even without focusing my mind for an exact definition, the integration of these sorts of desires does not present a very rational picture to me; it does not present me with a picture of someone in control of his mind. Or more precisely, it does not give me the impression of a man who understands the source of his emotions. He's more like a slave to his whims.

You are going to have to be more clear about what you think counts as a "weird fixation." :) I find it to be a "weird fixation" how some people can be so strongly set on needing there to be certain body parts on the person they are with or imagining for them to be sexually attracted when said body parts have nothing to do with the person being healthy or unhealthy. I could at least understand being at least a bit disturbed and having a hard time getting into it if somebody is missing feet since that speaks of a health problem, even though I don't understand the other end of things where some people find feet very sexually arousing. Whether somebody has male or females parts (or hey, maybe even something not exactly one or the other as long as what they do have works just fine), there's nothing about that in and of itself which must mean they are better able to stimulate your body parts or you to be able to stimulate what parts they have. (Even if you want to assume there's something which does lead to different personalities due to those body parts just by the nature of the body regardless of what does or doesn't go on over the course of life for a person such that in real life you would not come across somebody of an attractive personality of a different body type, remember we're including fantasy here too, so it is possible to imagine a different kind of personality in a different body.) Even if you want to say you think it may at least for heterosexual people have something to do with wanting to be with somebody you could

make babies with, I still don't see that as totally explaining it to make sense for all cases of heterosexuals since not all of them want kids, many of them adopt or may have kids through combinations of their genes with other people and not their mates, or else there are cases of people too who will be heterosexual but that isn't something that makes them count out being with somebody infertile even though they would count out being with somebody of the same sex. So please, do explain to me the line between what is acceptable and what is not acceptable here so long as people aren't doing stuff too risky to the point it could possibly get them seriously maimed or killed. As I just explained, I don't really see fixations on certain genitals to the exclusion of other as so rational necessarily, but hey, at least it doesn't seem to be hurting the people much and so this one is widely looked upon as a-okay, but then on the other hand, somebody who maybe likes feet or shoes is seen as unacceptably irrational? At least something like somebody who likes shoes could easily just add that in to whatever situation or relationship they're in, it isn't a difficult problem you have to strongly alter your life to accommodate.

. This conditioning starts from birth. When you have a baby girl you dress her in pink, when you have a boy you dress him in blue. Everything you do and say to your child while raising bears the stigma of your particular bias for their gender. This is a good and natural part of raising a child, a child should have a gender identity, I don't believe we should all begin raising children androgynously. However since these values and behaviors are resultant from environmental forces, they can be changed. Sometimes they can be changed very easily, sometimes they are more difficult, however they are always changed voluntarily.

I do believe sexuality is a choice. It is definitely heavily influenced throughout childhood, from birth on. For some people a change can happen easily over time, whereas others don't even see how such a change is possible for themselves. This is neither a result of 'genetic' preferences, nor environmental psychological determinism. It is simply that some people made the choice at a very early age, and have since not had to question it. If this is the case for you, great! There is no reason to change something you are happy with. However, for others, the choice to be gay, straight, or bi has to do with rational judgement based on values.

To say that there is no way to choose sexual preference, for anybody, is to surrender volition.

Heh, funny enough, I hate pink and my favorite color is blue. XP [/unimportant side note] Now as to the thing about how kids shouldn't be raised in a way without regard to trying to instill a "gender identity" -- why not? It isn't like these days males need to be the lone one to "bring home the bacon" or women need to be the only ones taking care of kids (or have kids at all, thank you many existing ways that exist to prevent having kids) - men and women can work, men can take care of kids too, both men and women could equally well defend themselves or partners thanks to modern weaponry and such, et cetera. Heh, I don't plan to ever have kids, but I've wanted to see if I could convince at least somebody I know who will be having kids not to try to guide their kid much toward a "gender identity" just to see what the kid will freely choose on their own. I've also thought it would be funny though if I ever had to babysit said kid when they were a baby to take them out dressed in a plain green or yellow outfit just to see how other people react to the baby when it isn't dressed up in a way that shouts "I'm hiding a tiny [insert genital type] in here! ;D"

Now as for the later part, I'm not sure, have I mentioned yet in this thread my position on that? In case I haven't, in short: I never felt any sexual attraction of any sort until one point at around puberty I sat down and thought about it and decided I didn't see anything about what sex a person was that really would make somebody necessarily better for me, so ever since I just pay attention to personality and values and such and on that basis will become attracted to somebody and it is the fact of who the body belongs to that then makes it appealing as a consequence. So, I contend that I quite consciously made my choice about sexuality. Having spoken in threads on another forum about sexuality, I've found many people really didn't like hearing this. It went against their whole thing about defending not being straight as something that must not be a choice because nobody would want to choose it if they could. I think there's too many people out there really just not wanting to consider that sexuality could be a choice because then they might have to ask why they should have the sexuality that they do. Especially it is sad to see such a thing applied to non-heterosexuals so much as it is because I think it sounds like to be so insistent on this these people must have accepted the idea that there is something wrong with wanting be with somebody of the same sex if you could have possibly avoided it. Rather than trying to defend there being nothing bad about being with somebody of the same sex, instead they just want to fall back on assuming it isn't good, but they shouldn't be looked down upon for being in a less good sexual situation because "they just couldn't help it."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now as for the later part, I'm not sure, have I mentioned yet in this thread my position on that? In case I haven't, in short: I never felt any sexual attraction of any sort until one point at around puberty I sat down and thought about it and decided I didn't see anything about what sex a person was that really would make somebody necessarily better for me, so ever since I just pay attention to personality and values and such and on that basis will become attracted to somebody and it is the fact of who the body belongs to that then makes it appealing as a consequence. So, I contend that I quite consciously made my choice about sexuality. Having spoken in threads on another forum about sexuality, I've found many people really didn't like hearing this. It went against their whole thing about defending not being straight as something that must not be a choice because nobody would want to choose it if they could. I think there's too many people out there really just not wanting to consider that sexuality could be a choice because then they might have to ask why they should have the sexuality that they do. Especially it is sad to see such a thing applied to non-heterosexuals so much as it is because I think it sounds like to be so insistent on this these people must have accepted the idea that there is something wrong with wanting be with somebody of the same sex if you could have possibly avoided it. Rather than trying to defend there being nothing bad about being with somebody of the same sex, instead they just want to fall back on assuming it isn't good, but they shouldn't be looked down upon for being in a less good sexual situation because "they just couldn't help it."

I think this is a very important point. To me, the whole discussion about whether choosing to be some stripe of queer (here defined as anything other than straight) is really ancillary and misses the point. I don't really care whether someone is gay because they are "wired" that way, because they chose to be with someone of the same sex out of love, or something in between. All I care about is whether there is anything wrong with doing so, and it seems to me the answer is clearly no unless it goes against one of your other values - in other words, if you are someone who absolutely must have a child biologically with your life partner you should not choose to be with someone of the same sex. Other than that, what exactly is wrong with it? Nothing I can see. So what does it matter if it's a choice?

I understand that this is not the majority position on this board and that many people on here who are perfectly OK with gay people because they feel it is not a choice would still say that an ideal romance would be between a man and a woman. I also think that at least some aspects of sexuality are not particularly volitional or we would not see such cross-cultural agreement on the attractiveness of certain traits among the rational and irrational alike. Consider this - the vast majority of societies all around the world, and arguably even here in the US as well, still see the basic unit of society as the family, not the individual. I would say most if not all Objectivists rebel strongly against this point of view, but when you consider that is how most of the world operates suddenly it makes a lot more sense why everyone is compelled to be in everyone else's sexual business. If you are a parent and you feel you are owed grandchildren, and that you should have control over these grandchildren and other relatives and such because your family is a political and economic unit geared towards the consolidation of power, of COURSE you are going to want to control the sexuality of others.

Methinks perhaps this is one reason Rand never had a terribly positive view of the family as such. Though I know that family can be a loving, positive force in someone's life I find it is frequently the opposite and Rand was probably seeing a similar pattern. The Reardens much?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, another issue in people not "liking to hear it" is that it's inconsistent with their own experiences and all the other experiences they've heard about -- plus, it's fairly uncommon for someone to claim that sexuality is a choice while not simultaneously prattling on about the homosexual agenda and other religious-right nonsense.

bluecherry, have you considered the possibility that you simply weren't aware of how you felt until you focused on it? I know I personally can remember things I thought or felt back around the age of entering puberty which I should have realized the meaning of, but didn't at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I was quite serious about just not having felt sexual attraction before that point. Quite seriously I think that if nobody had ever told me about sex, had I not learned of it from anywhere, I just never would have thought to even try having anything poking around in that part of my body, let alone having somebody else messing around down there except maybe a doctor. It's kind of funny for me to think of with all the complaints that go around about how it is so hard to shelter kids from being sexualized from exposure to sex all over the place in the media and such, but while I was not very sheltered as a kid and neither did my parents ever try to hide it from me or confuse me on the subject or make me think there was anything in any way negative about that part of my body, still, all I ever associated with that part of my body or others' parts of theirs' (to what little passing consideration I ever gave to that subject) was just that it was where waste came out and so it was a bit dirty (literal sense of the word) and therefore something I generally would want to avoid get anything around it or touching it, much the same way I would want to avoid generally getting things up my nose. So what little knowledge I had of sex as a kid was to look at it as something rather strange and foreign, I just didn't get it. So as I got a little older I really had to actually try and make myself learn how to think of that issue, to come to understand how it could be appealing. It was something that never seemed to just "come naturally" to me like some kind of "instinct" - I had to learn of it like any other subject. I learned it existed, what it was exactly, the different types it could come in, the functions it could serve and so on. Contemplating those things after I learned of them and thinking on implications and so on I came to grasp the subject finally, to learn the whole mindset of it that is needed to take something that is basically rubbing together body parts where waste comes out and has lots of bodily fluids involved and see what could be so sublime about it. I have no problems understanding it and finding the appeal like anybody else now, but I know very clearly how I got to where I am on the subject from not understanding it or seeing what was so great. Aaaaand therefore, no, it wasn't just that I had a foggy sexuality before that I needed to clarify - I had none, I gained one through conscious effort and consideration.

Now as for the "people not liking to hear it" thing - the claim is often that it can't be so because they've never heard of it, but then I do come along and they just won't listen and will want to deny or ignore it. I know it might be suspicious some if I claimed I chose to be straight because it would seem like I was perhaps trying to lie to fuel anti-non-heterosexual stuff, but I decided I had absolutely no problem with being with people of the same sex. I feel like I'm being subjected to a "no true Scotsman" where "it isn't a choice because nobody chose it - anybody who DOES claim to say they chose it doesn't count, they must be lying, they didn't really choose it, therefore my point stands."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I was quite serious about just not having felt sexual attraction before that point.

...

"it isn't a choice because nobody chose it - anybody who DOES claim to say they chose it doesn't count, they must be lying, they didn't really choose it, therefore my point stands."

Did you somehow skip puberty?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All jokes about me looking younger than I am aside, nope, I definitely went through puberty. I went sort of kicking and screaming too, since puberty is such an awkward stage. Man, that wasn't fun. I used to have such nice hair until that time too. ;_; Damn stuff decided it hated me and had been so frizzy and stuff ever since no matter what I do . . .

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...