Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Homosexuality vs. Heterosexuality

Rate this topic


RationalEgoistSG

Recommended Posts

CF,

I agree with some parts of what you wrote and disagree with some. I'm not frankly sure what it's supposed to mean when people say that men and women have different minds. Maybe you can elaborate on it, but I can't see how this idea could not depend on innate ideas, if it's supposed to have relevance to the issue of homosexuality.

I'm familiar with Rand's view of gender differences, and I'm definitely not in agreement with her. I'm curious: do you actually agree with her that it would be psychologically damaging for a woman to become president? Her view of femininity basically puts women in the role of a subordinate -- that they are to admire a man in a way that the man is not to admire them. That just strikes me as wrong. It certainly doesn't accord with my experiences in romantic relationships.

I wish I could remember which was my favorite Bond woman, but it's been years since I watched most of the Bond flicks. I worked at a video rental store at the time, so I got free rentals whenever I wanted... I watched every Bond movie in existence (including weird ones like "Casino Royale" and the one about Ian Fleming) in a space of about two weeks. Loved them, but in retrospect they all kinda blend together...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm not frankly sure what it's supposed to mean when people say that men and women have different minds.

They have different minds to the extent that they have different bodies. You get your sense of identity from the signals your body delivers to you via your nervous system; it is from these signals that you induce who you are and what kind of life is proper for you. Since the body of a man is partly different from the body of a woman--in fundamental ways--some of these signals will be different for the two sexes, in fundamental ways. And thus, the ideas about a proper life will be different too.

As you see, there are no "innate ideas" involved, but still, there are some inevitable differences between men and women with regard to their sense of identity, which are consequences of their bodily differences.

I'm curious: do you actually agree with her that it would be psychologically damaging for a woman to become president?
I haven't given that much thought, but one thing I can tell you for sure is that I would very much hate to see any woman named Hillary become POTUS in the near future! B)

On a more serious note, I think it's perfectly OK for a woman to be a moral leader, but I have some doubts about how well a woman would do as a commander. Perhaps this is why I find it so natural to imagine a woman as Prime Minister of Great Britain (or the Queen of the same country), but not as the President of the United States. (You will say that this has to do with the concrete examples I have seen in my life and in history books, but I do encourage you to try to grasp the difference between the concept of a moral leader and that of a commander.)

Her view of femininity basically puts women in the role of a subordinate

Look, I'm not much of a movie guy myself, but don't tell me you haven't heard of "The Reagans" ! B)

Not that I actually believe that President Reagan was "totally under Nancy's control." I think their marriage was actually a rather good example of what the relationship between a man and a woman should be like: they have a common philosophy; they have common goals in life; they work together to achieve them, with the woman encouraging the man with her love and inspiring him with her beauty, and the man protecting the woman and sharing the fruits of his achievements with her. When the woman delivers her part of the deal, she is acting as a "subordinate" of the man; when the man delivers his part, he is a "subordinate" of the woman. Just like your mechanic is your subordinate when he fixes your car, but you are his subordinate when you pay for his services.

If sometime you re-watch "The Spy Who Loved Me," you'll get quite a good impression of what I think a perfect romantic relationship is like. Imagining away all the other women Bond sleeps with, that is! B) And, as it should go without saying, also imagining away the fact that the KGB is an evil agency that is often portrayed in a way too positive light in Bond movies. If you simply substitute two rival capitalist companies for the MI6 and the KGB, you'll be able to appreciate the excitement of the extra amount of "barrier breaking" that the plot adds to the romance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A: Because it involves psychological flaws, corruptions, errors, or unfortunate premises, but there is a psychological immorality at the root of homosexuality. Therefore I regard it as immoral. But I do not believe that the government has the right to prohibit it. It is the privilege of any individual to use his sex life in whichever way he wants it. That's his legal right, provided he is not forcing it on anyone. And therefore the idea that it's proper among consenting adults is the proper formulation legally. Morally it is immoral, and more than that, if you want my really sincere opinion, it is disgusting.
Since Objectivism is not a cult and Ayn Rand would not have wanted me to refer to myself as a "RANDIAN" then I must say that the quote above is only rhetoric. Where are the arguments to support her view apart from her personal feelings. I think this is one of the only or most absurd thing Rand ever said.

Remember Rand said that one cannot be a dogmatic Objectivist because when attempting to make the philosophy a dogma one has to esentially renounce it.

Rand said:

Since Objectivism requires the use of one's mind, those who attempt to take broad principles and apply them unthinkingly and indiscriminately to the concretes of their own existence find that it cannot be done. They are then compelled either to reject Objectivism or to apply it. When I say apply, I mean that they have to use their own mind, their own thinking, in order to know how to apply Objectivist principles to the specific problems of their own lives.

Here is a reading that I enjoyed:

Homosexuality and Individual Identity

http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Index.html?

http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Dictionary.html

Does anyone have a quote from Dr. Peikoff explaining why or if homosexuality is immoral?

For more on my view on this matter follow the link below:

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...st=0entry2652

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CF said:

In a homosexual relationship, one of the partners inevitably has to play the role of a man and the other has to play the role of a woman, even though both are men or both are women. This is an implicit admission that the relationship is just a cheap substitute for something more real.

Objection! This is a non sequitur! Your contention above is hopelessly sexist. Are we to believe that in all societies women are the submissive sex? I think not. Must a man always make more money than his wife, must a woman never be the head of the family, must the woman always be the home engineer or can a man also take that role. Women and men have no immutable roles at all so I say that your point is moot. It is some sort of Victorian and mystic notion of gender roles that you appeal to in your ill-fated attempt to prove that homosexuality is immoral.

Besides just because one partner is submissive that does not imply that they are trying to be feminine; all it demonstrates is that one partner assumed the submissive role (that’s the way life is). It is heterosexuals and gays who have been influenced by the norms of “society” that apply certain terms to act and circumstances that they are familiar to. It is something like using the words “slave” and “master” in computer jargon. It is metaphors at work. It is like saying that all relationships must be 50/50 when this is clearly impossible. One partner would be smarter, fitter, make more money, be more outgoing, be more hornier, be (more) bossy or have the dominant personality and be able to handle problems better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Objection! This is a non sequitur! Your contention above is hopelessly sexist. Are we to believe that in all societies women are the submissive sex? I think not. Must a man always make more money than his wife, must a woman never be the head of the family, must the woman always be the home engineer or can a man also take that role. Women and men have no immutable roles at all so I say that your point is moot. It is some sort of Victorian and mystic notion of gender roles that you appeal to in your ill-fated attempt to prove that homosexuality is immoral...

While I don't agree 100% with CF at this point, I must say that I think some of Capleton's objections against him are straw-man arguments. CF never said anything about whether it is proper or not for a woman to earn more money than her husband, etc. He was talking explicitly about sexual roles, not about so-called "gender roles," so all that other stuff is irrelevent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I don't agree 100% with CF at this point, I must say that I think some of Capleton's objections against him are straw-man arguments. CF never said anything about whether it is proper or not for a woman to earn more money than her husband, etc. He was talking explicitly about sexual roles, not about so-called "gender roles," so all that other stuff is irrelevent.
I am well aware that you are quite fond of dismissing arguments you don't agree with without much elaboration. I detect some equivocation on your part. There are really no such things as "sexual roles" (unless you are talking about role playing in the sex act). Gender roles are assumed by "society" by the sex of individuals. The question as whether or not someone is submissive in a relationship has traditionally been determined by his or her sex. In essence my point was that there are no immutable (or universal) gender roles that are assigned by sex. For anyone to claim that just because a gay man assumes the submissive role in a relationship it is because he is trying to mimic a female is incorrect. What about men who are submissive in the bedroom in a heterosexual relationship are they acting like a female? I think not!

For the record I never said that CF gave the examples I gave. I was just making that case that gender roles are not universal and any argument that asserts that much is moot.

Again here is what CF said:

In a homosexual relationship, one of the partners inevitably has to play the role of a man and the other has to play the role of a woman, even though both are men or both are women. This is an implicit admission that the relationship is just a cheap substitute for something more real.

What is the role of a man or a woman for that matter? Blank out. There is no objective basis to make the case as to whether someone is acting like a male or not. Clearly he was referring to gender "roles" above. He was essentially saying that gay men and women have a certain role in a relationship (he did not mention what exactly the role(s) were) but he seemed to suggest that the roles mimic those of heterosexual relationships. The fact is that heterosexual relationships differ in many regards, i.e., the role of the man and the woman are not static or universal in all such relationships. In that regard, it is incorrect to assert that gay men try to mimic female behavior when female behavior cannot be defined in a rational manner. All that CF has done is assume that men and women have static roles in relationships (he is wrong). I must conclude that using "stereotypical" gender roles to try to argue against homosexuality being moral is absurd.

Definitions:

Sex: the distinction between male and female, found in most species of animals and plants, based on the type of gametes produced by the individual or the category into which the individual fits on the basis of that criterion.

Gender: distinction between the socially-constructed expectations associated with masculinity and femininity and the biological categories of male and female.

Gender role: gender role, the public expression of gender; the image projected by a person that identifies their maleness or femaleness, which need not correspond to their gender identity.

Gender identity: gender identity, a person's concept of himself as being male and masculine or female and feminine, or ambivalent, usually based on physical characteristics, parental attitudes and expectations, and psychological and social pressures. It is the private experience of gender role.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hah, I caused quite a stir with my "sexist" remarks, didn't I! B)

There seems to be a strong and widespread conviction that "sexism" is something irrational. But what exactly is the meaning of this "sexism" that I am being accused of here? It is the recoginition of the fact that men and women have different natures, and that consequently the life of an ideal man will in some ways be different from the life of an ideal woman. Where IS the irrationality here? Where AM I not being objective?

Yes, the notion that "sexism" is an irrational relic of the Victorian age has gained a lot of influence in the 20th century (in America, apparently even more than in Hungary). But that notion certainly didn't come from Ayn Rand---it came from the feminists ! The fact that some angry, embittered women stridently proclaim that an idea is irrational doesn't make that idea irrational. Just like we shouldn't reject capitalism because "it exploits the poor" ; just like we shouldn't surrender to terrorists for fear of being "intolerant," we shouldn't tell women to deny their natures and be like men for fear of being "sexist."

And, while I hate to disagree with Ash, especially when he's defending me, B) I also reject the notion of separating "gender" from "sex." Just like your mind and your body are inseparable aspects of the same thing--you--and ought to act harmoniously, your bodily identity (sex) ought to mesh with your mental identity (gender). The body of a woman is delicate; its attraction is its beauty; it requires protection and care; it invites decoration--therefore, a woman will long for a man to protect her, to appreciate her beauty, to buy her clothes and jewels...and so on. Now try to read the last sentence substituting "man" for "woman" and vice versa.

I suppose one of the reasons why the feminist rhetoric has been successful is the insinuation that in the "sexist" view, femininity equals submission. My mention of "The Reagans" seems to have flown right past my friend Capleton's consciousness. B) You must have heard of that controversial miniseries, but in case you haven't, it's a smear of the Reagan presidency based on the invented "fact" that for 8 years the policy of the United States was shaped by the whims of a woman whom her husband needed so much that he unquestioningly submitted to her every command.

A romantic relationship between a man and a woman is a trade, where the man gives the woman something she needs and the woman gives the man something he needs. Trading is not about submission; it's about giving value for value. When the woman finds that her man is no good, she can--and she should--leave him.

Finally, let me tell you that while I definitely accept the possibility that Ayn Rand could have been mistaken on a number of minor points that are not essential to her philosophy, I think we can safely rule out the idea that she was fundamentally in error regarding a woman's nature--i.e. her own nature. As a man, I am perfectly capable of determining what kind of a life I find proper for myself, and as it happens, I'm in complete agreement with what Miss Rand wrote on living qua man. From my experiences, I have induced what it means to live qua woman--and, by some strange coincidence, ;) in this regard too I agree with Miss Rand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am well aware that you are quite fond of dismissing arguments you don't agree with without much elaboration.

Capleton--

The topic under discussion was, specifically, homosexuality. (I suppose it could be a broader discussion of the lifestyles of homosexuals outside of the bedroom, but I took it to be the specific act of same-sex coupling and don't see how whatever else particular homosexuals do is necessarily relevent.) You brought in things such as whether or not a woman makes more money than her husband--which is completely irrelevent to the discussion (which is not to imply a mind/body disintegration, CF B) )! How much more elaboration is required? It's not that I disagree with your position (although my own line of thinking is presently somewhat closer to CF's than to your own)--I haven't reached a final conclusion on this topic, which is why I haven't elaborated more in this thread--it's just that it was a bad argument. My pointing this out was not intended as a personal attack, and you should not have responded as though it were.

The rest of your post is more irrelevent fluff. (I especially like the p.c. definitions you got out of your feminism textbook.)

P.S. I am sorry that you think I dismiss things out of hand. If you would like to give me some specific examples of my having done so, I will humbly admit my error if I indeed made one--or I will be happy to give the further elaboration that you desire.

P.P.S. CF--if I am still wrong about your position, and you do take considerations such as who earns more money in a relationship to be relevent to an integration of mind and body for the parties involved, please correct me.

Edited by AshRyan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd just like to add my own objection to the mix. I understand where you are coming from, CF, but you have failed to show that the difference between man and woman is fundamental (as a determinant of the nature of one's mind). Currently, I am inclined to think that difference is NOT fundamental. A man and a woman can be much more like each other mentally than two men. The sexes have shown themselves capable of performing the same occupations (I'm sure you would lose to the worst professional female tennis players; your masculinity alone would not help you.)

I think the bodily difference between men and women does have limited sexual implications: the man can be more physically dominant (I do not believe the woman should submit, but rather should "dominate" in the ways that her body allows). But this has no connection with mind-body integration, as CF's theory maintains.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MusicalMike95

I can say something personally about this. I came out because of objectivism. Before I discovered it, I dated a girl. I didn't want to but I did because I thought that it was immoral to be gay (catholic upbringing). I figured if I stayed with her long enough it could make me straight. That ended in disaster. Only after discovering Rand did I realize that I was faking reality. I didn't want a woman, any woman. I don't know why. I can assure you it has nothing to do with the way I was raised. I have an excellent relationship with both of my parents. I take issue with calling homosexuality a cowards way out. Coming out takes an extraordinary amount of courage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AynRyan:

The topic under discussion was, specifically, homosexuality. (I suppose it could be a broader discussion of the lifestyles of homosexuals outside of the bedroom, but I took it to be the specific act of same-sex coupling and don't see how whatever else particular homosexuals do is necessarily relevent.)
If one discusses homosexuality then the lifestyle of homosexuals is to be examined. In any event, homosexuality is a lifestyle (manner of living that reflects the person's values and attitudes) and any discussion of homosexuality cannot evade lifestyle trends. In the above you seem to be saying that I brought up irrelevant material but at this time I do not have a clue as to what they may be.

You brought in things such as whether or not a woman makes more money than her husband--which is completely irrelevent to the discussion (which is not to imply a mind/body disintegration, CF  )!

If one drops the context of my arguments then one would conclude that I am bringing in irrelevant material. I was responding to CF's discussion of homosexuals and heterosexuals relationships. If anyone were to read CF's post it would be apparent that he included in his arguments the behavior of heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. It follows that in order for me to have effectively critiqued his position I had to raise counter examples along the same lines. Again, CF was alluding to gender roles and I tried to show that his view of gender roles is inaccurate.

How much more elaboration is required? It's not that I disagree with your position (although my own line of thinking is presently somewhat closer to CF's than to your own)--I haven't reached a final conclusion on this topic, which is why I haven't elaborated more in this thread--it's just that it was a bad argument. My pointing this out was not intended as a personal attack, and you should not have responded as though it were.
I was not "insulted" by this simple disagreement between you and I. I reckon my writing style led you to believe that this was the case but I assure you that I do not take it personally. It is just that if someone publicly objects to my views I would like to know why (if circumstances permit). Clearly your moral position on this matter is not as firm (by your own confession) as mine is. In that regard it would be unreasonable of you to think that I might be moved by you initial reply to me.

The rest of your post is more irrelevent fluff. (I especially like the p.c. definitions you got out of your feminism textbook.)

It is easy to render rhetoric but it does not absolve one of the responsibility of validating ones claims. I am yet to be moved by your posts. At this moment I am not obliged to take your above comments seriously. I am not a feminist so your uttering of slogans and platitudes only make me chuckle.

PS: I tend to write in a forceful manner so do not assume that I am overly sentimental or resentful. To avoid unnecessary mud-slinging I would not reply to your rhetorical offerings in the future where this issue is concerned (I will however entertain arguments).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AynRyan:

First of all, my name is AshRyan.

Second, I believe I may have misinterpreted the intention of at least some of your post.

If one drops the context of my arguments then one would conclude that I am bringing in irrelevant material. I was responding to CF's discussion of homosexuals and heterosexuals relationships. If anyone were to read CF's post it would be apparent that he included in his arguments the behavior of heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. It follows that in order for me to have effectively critiqued his position I had to raise counter examples along the same lines. Again, CF was alluding to gender roles and I tried to show that his view of gender roles is inaccurate.

I guess I can see how one might think that such a thing as how much money a particular partner in a relationship makes as compared to the other could be a relevant counterexample to CF's post. (However, I still doubt that he would agree that it is relevant--but it's up to him to clarify his own position in that regard--nor do I think his position commits him to that, so I don't think that it is a valid counterexample.)

Anyway, to the extent that I may have misunderstood you, I apologize.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd just like to add my own objection to the mix. I understand where you are coming from, CF, but you have failed to show that the difference between man and woman is fundamental (as a determinant of the nature of one's mind). Currently, I am inclined to think that difference is NOT fundamental. A man and a woman can be much more like each other mentally than two men. The sexes have shown themselves capable of performing the same occupations (I'm sure you would lose to the worst professional female tennis players; your masculinity alone would not help you.)

Daniel, I agree that physical differences between men and women is not fundamental to the nature of their mind, but I would say that it is definitely relevant in certain contexts--namely, sexual contexts (about which we seem to be in at least partial agreement), and more broadly in the context of sexual relationships (i.e., in romantic contexts). I also think that it has limited relevance in other contexts in which physical features particular to one sex over the other is relevant. That may be all CF is saying, but he may be trying to apply those differences more broadly, in contexts in which I don't see how they're relevant. I think that he may be making too much of those differences, and Capleton too little.

I think you may also be making too little of them, though not to the extent that Capleton seems to be. For instance:

The sexes have shown themselves capable of performing the same occupations (I'm sure you would lose to the worst professional female tennis players; your masculinity alone would not help you.)

That may be true, but in a match between the best professional male tennis player, and the best professional female tennis player, the male player's masculinity most certainly will help him. (Tennis may not be the best example of this, but take a sport that deals even more essentially with physical strength such as shot-put, and the difference becomes even more relevant.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

P.P.S.  CF--if I am still wrong about your position, and you do take considerations such as who earns more money in a relationship to be relevent to an integration of mind and body for the parties involved, please correct me.

A man who earns much less than his wife, lives in a house owned by her, drives a car paid for by her money, etc., is a miserable failure and can never really be proud of himself, as to live qua man involves the creation of wealth--material wealth--and by accepting wealth he hasn't earned, he admits that he is incapable of creating wealth himself. On the other hand, a woman who needs to buy herself a husband is also a failure, as she admits that she is incapable of winning a man's admiration qua woman--i.e. by being beautiful and lovely.

But if both the wife and husband are billionaires--remember, we are talking about ideal cases--then it doesn't matter much which of them has more billions; they are both successful.

In summary, I would say that if a woman marries a man for his money, that means success for both, but if a man marries a woman for her money, that means failure for both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only after discovering Rand did I realize that I was faking reality.  I didn't want a woman, any woman.  I don't know why.

Funny, I don't want a man, any man, but I know why.

There are many men I find handsome; I can imagine being petted by a man, and I know that if I discarded my value-judgments on this matter, I would even enjoy it. (As we know, emotions are a reflection of one's value-judgments; if I removed my negative value-judgments with regard to being petted by a man, my revulsion would go away, but the sensual pleasure would stay--that is, I would enjoy it.) However, after enough petting, one would want to get more intimate--and then I would find that I and that other man do not have compatible body parts. It would be impossible to do with him that which I can do with a woman. I know there are substitutes for it--but the REAL thing would be impossible.

Dating a girl will not in itself help you become straight, I can guarantee you that. You need to look at your value-judgments and see which of them is rational and which of them is not. (And I do not mean just the ones regarding sexual behavior, but also the ones regarding men and women in general ... And while you're at it, it's a good idea to periodically revisit all your value-judgments, regarding all aspects of life, and place them on a rational basis!) :)

Another important thing to note is that a romantic relationship can only be REALLY satisfying if you love the body as well as the mind of your chosen one--if you think she is the best woman you can marry, in all possible ways. Contradictions are not conducive to happiness; caressing, kissing, and the higher forms of intimacy are an expression of love ; therefore, they only make sense if you indeed love (i.e. value) the person in question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A man who earns much less than his wife, lives in a house owned by her, drives a car paid for by her money, etc., is a miserable failure and can never really be proud of himself, as to live qua man involves the creation of wealth--material wealth--and by accepting wealth he hasn't earned, he admits that he is incapable of creating wealth himself. On the other hand, a woman who needs to buy herself a husband is also a failure, as she admits that she is incapable of winning a man's admiration qua woman--i.e. by being beautiful and lovely.

But if both the wife and husband are billionaires--remember, we are talking about ideal cases--then it doesn't matter much which of them has more billions; they are both successful.

In summary, I would say that if a woman marries a man for his money, that means success for both, but if a man marries a woman for her money, that means failure for both.

I mostly agree, but it is not because his wife earns more than him that the man you describe is a failure. Rather, it is simply that he is unable to support himself, to live qua man. I don't think that that directly relates to the issue of heterosexuality vs. homosexuality.

Also, I wouldn't say that it is right for a woman to marry a man for his money, any more than for a man to marry a woman for hers. More properly, she might marry him for the virtues by which he would be able to make an honest living in a rational society (which he probably can to some extent in our society). Regardless, that does not mean that she does not need to earn her own living as well. (And no, I wouldn't say that being arm candy for her husband counts as earning her living. Full-time escort/prostitute is not a morally legitimate occupation--although mother/housewife might be in certain contexts.)

(I am not ascribing any of these positions to you, CF, just trying to clarify.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reply to CF,

What makes homosexuality an immoral sexual orientation?

The standard of morality is Man's Life. So the question rephrased is, how is having a homosexual relationship detrimental to one's life qua man?

Certaintly it is not because, as you claim, homosexual sex is somehow less satisfying than heterosexual sex (which is highly questionable), or that it is easier to have sex with someone of the same sex (which is false).

It would help if these irrational values and immoral premise that supposedly makes one a homosexual, or any other "immoral" sexual orientation, were explicity identified and stated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, I wouldn't say that it is right for a woman to marry a man for his money, any more than for a man to marry a woman for hers.  More properly, she might marry him for the virtues by which he would be able to make an honest living in a rational society (which he probably can to some extent in our society).

Yes, that's what I had in mind. :)

Regardless, that does not mean that she does not need to earn her own living as well.  (And no, I wouldn't say that being arm candy for her husband counts as earning her living.  Full-time escort/prostitute is not a morally legitimate occupation--although mother/housewife might be in certain contexts.)

Of course, merely having an attractive body--which is shaped by her genes, not by her choices--does not count as earning anything. But most of a woman's beauty and attractiveness comes from her volitional behavior: the clothes she wears, her hairstlye, her nutritional habits, her demeanor, her smiles, her gait, her intonation, her sense of humor, the look in her eyes--and so on. Her body is just the raw material; what she turns it into is completely up to her.

Also, she needs to recognize the virtues that allow a man to create wealth and she needs to value those virtues by finding a man who has those virtues and sticking to him even when he is not wealthy yet or when he is in temporary financial troubles.

By finding a virtuous man, standing by him, encouraging him, helping him in his work, and being woman enough to win and keep his heart, I would say that a woman has pretty much earned whatever portion of his wealth the man thinks she deserves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, she needs to recognize the virtues that allow a man to create wealth and she needs to value those virtues by finding a man who has those virtues and sticking to him even when he is not wealthy yet or when he is in temporary financial troubles.

By finding a virtuous man, standing by him, encouraging him, helping him in his work, and being woman enough to win and keep his heart, I would say that a woman has pretty much earned whatever portion of his wealth the man thinks she deserves.

Why can't one turn this around? Why can't one say...

Also, he needs to recognize the virtues that allow a woman (which would be the same as those for a man) to create wealth and he needs to value those virtues by finding a woman who has those virtues and sticking to her even when she is not wealthy yet or when she is in temporary financial troubles....I would say that this man has pretty much earned whatever portion of her wealth the woman thinks he deserves.

Also, in response to Ash, I agree with you. The point I was making was that men and women do not differ bodily such that their lives must be different in kind. But their bodily differences do have implications for physical activities (not because of differences in their minds).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MusicalMike95

Allow me to clarify that when I said "I don't know why," I meant I don't know what the cause of homosexuality is. As far as I know no one does. But are you suggesting that I need to somehow "fix" myself and become straight?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why can't one turn this around? Why can't one say...

Why do I have to repeat myself? Why do I have to tell you again that a man would consider his life a miserable failure if he were so incapable of creating material wealth that he had to live off a woman?

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Allow me to clarify that when I said "I don't know why," I meant I don't know what the cause of homosexuality is.  As far as I know no one does.  But are you suggesting that I need to somehow "fix" myself and become straight?

I am suggesting just what I wrote in my previous post to you: that you consciously and rationally revisit your value-judgments. As long as you "don't know" why you feel this way or the other, your life is guided by your emotions, not by your reason.

As I wrote, I know the "cause" of my heterosexuality. I should mention that in my teenage years I used to have a rather strange "sexual orientation": I used to get excited when I thought of fat people. I remember the exact moment in my early childhood that gave rise to the emotions that led to this "orientation." As I grew up and planned my life, making value-judgments about what kinds of traits I wanted in my partner in life, my "orientation" gradually disappeared and was completely replaced by an interest in women with an attractive figure. Now I just laugh at that odd preference I used to have.

BTW you mentioned your Catholic upbringing. I think it might be part of the problem: Catholic doctrine suggests that romantic intimacy (or as they call it, "bodily pleasures") is an untidy activity that ranks somewhere right next to going to the toilet. That's plain wrong; it's an expression of love and consequently it only works when there is love to express in the first place. No wonder you couldn't change by merely dating a girl; you were putting the cart before the horse. (And so is everyone who enters a relationship looking just for sex; if you want a happy, successful, rewarding, and lasting marriage, you should look for virtues that you can love, and you should have virtues that will allow your spouse to love you back--and the rest will come very naturally.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CF, two men are capable of having sex. (Your dismissal of homosexuality because of "incompatible" body parts doesn't make sense to me.) So what is wrong with being sexually attracted to an attractive man?

I am attracted to women. I can explain why I am attracted to one woman rather than another, but I cannot explain why I am attracted to women as opposed to men. The virtues in a woman that contribute to my attraction towards her, when they are present in a man, do not make me desire him as anything other than a friend. Why dismiss the possiblity that this is simply an automatic biological response?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, my name is AshRyan.

Do forgive my error above. It was not intentional at all. I have been taunted for being an Objectivist by atheists of different philosophical persuasions by their intentional use of made up words in the past (words suggesting Objectivism is a cult with Rand as the founder). When I saw that I wrote "AynRyan" (by mistake) I nearly slapped myself.

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...