Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Homosexuality vs. Heterosexuality

Rate this topic


RationalEgoistSG

Recommended Posts

Well perhaps your experience gives you a skewed view of human interactions.

Or perhaps not. It actually gives me an unshielded view of human nature at times.

But let's say I concede that women in general are more vulnerable to physical attack than men. What does that have to do with the nature of rational consensual relationships?
It can have everything to do with the start of a rational consensual relationship. Not all women seek strong men, but I would hazard that most women seek physically stronger men (in addition to the other intelluectual qualities mentioned before) for the very purpose of protection and providing for her.

The only time my greater physical strength is important in my relationship is when my wife want to rearrange the living room.

Perhaps your experience gives you a skewed view of human interactions. :) If you never need to use your strength to defend yourself or you wife then more power to you. But here's a hint, it won't be "everyday life" when you might need it. And it will be little consolation that you may be right that you don't need it in "everyday life" if something bad does happen. Like a gun, sometimes you only need use it once for it to prove it's worth.

Or is the point that I can defend her when she cannot defend herself? Against someone with a gun, I am just as helpless as her.
Are you just as helpless? People have this misconception that getting shot always means your down for the count. Yes, getting shot is a bad thing and CAN be instantly fatal, but many, many times it's not. I have on occasion seen guys who were shot who still fought back and over powered their attacker, and these weren't physically weak people (although a survival mentality was also a part). What you do in that situation is entirely up to you. I would assert that the physically stronger (AND the smarter) you are, the more likely you can survive that encounter if it goes bad. Or better yet, the physically stronger you are, the more likely you won't be chosen as a victim by a criminal. Being stronger doesn't always require you to put it in action in order for it to have a desired safety effect.

As a cop, aren't you required to enforce immoral laws like the drug laws? How do reconcile that with being rational?

You can do a search on this forum or view my posting history for a longer answer as this has been brought up before. The short answer is, I don't actively seek to enforce drugs laws. I only do so when my duty actively requires me to do so. That said, we are a nation of laws, and as a police officer it's not my place to pick and choose which laws I will or will not absolutely enforce unless I can demonstrate they are unconstitutional (and guess what, no one's buying that argument yet). The vast majority of immoral laws are easily avoided by not actively seeking to enforce them (most victimless crimes in other words). Sometimes you have to change things from the inside by presenting your views to people and letting them sink in. If I were to quit law enforcement because of drug laws, I'd be leaving the job to some (arguably) less rational people and not have the opportunity to persuade any of them in that fashion.

Do you see the only rational option being that an Objectivist shouldn't be a law enforcement officer?

VES

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

To answer the last question first, yes, I think an Objectivist should not be a cop in today's society. In my opinion it is never acceptable to actively participate in violating the rights of others. (To give an example from my own life, I was recently called for jury duty. The charge was cocaine trafficing. I was not selected to be on the jury but if I had been I would have told the judge flat out that I did not agree with the law and was not going to participate in punishing someone for violating it.) If you want to try to influence the system, I would think becoming a defense attorney or law prof. would be more effective and appropriate.

As for the rest, those are all good points but seemingly off-topic. Thankfully, being able to physically defend my wife is not all that relevant in our lives. Certainly even if we lived in a dangerous area I doubt it would be her main reason for being attracted to me. I don't see why male physical strength is supposed to have such a central position in the nature of male/female relationships.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To answer the last question first, yes, I think an Objectivist should not be a cop in today's society.

On this we shall have to disagree. I think it's better if we have more rational people in law enforcement, not less.

VES

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used different terms because I think that for a woman, this preference can stem out of a true romantic excitement for material achievements, while for a man it cannot. So, yes, my opinion was reflected in the way I phrased it.

Sure, a rational man will love material achievement in women--just like he loves it in men. He will respect, admire, and value productive people; what's more, he will get excited at their achievements. Excited--but not romantically excited!

Au contraire. I think a certain kind of man's awareness of a woman's material achievements can be quite a turn-on.

For instance:

But he was not looking at her as at a woman. He had forgotten where he was and on what errand, he was held by a child's sensation of joy in the immediate moment, by the delight of the unexpected and undiscovered, he was held by the astonishment of realizing how seldom he came upon a sight he truly liked, liked in complete acceptance and for its own sake, he was looking up at her with a faint smile, as he would have looked at a statue or a landscape, and what he felt was the sheer pleasure of the sight, the purest esthetic pleasure he had ever experienced.

He saw a switchman going by and he asked, pointing, "Who is that?"

"Dagny Taggart," said the man, walking on.

Rearden felt as if the words struck him inside his throat. He felt the start of a current that cut his breath for a moment, then went slowly down his body, carrying in its wake a sense of weight, a drained heaviness that left him no capacity but one. He was aware—with an abnormal clarity—of the place, the woman's name, and everything it implied, but all of it had receded into some outer ring and had become a pressure that left him alone in the center, as the ring's meaning and essence—and his only reality was the desire to have this woman, now, here, on top of the flatcar in the open sun—to have her before a word was spoken between them, as the first act of their meeting, because it would say everything and because they had earned it long ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And where exactly does Ayn Rand say that a man's material wealth is one of the primary reasons a woman responds romantically to a man?

It doesn't, and I never claimed that it did. The similarity in position between CF and AR is mainly in claiming that the essence of femininity is the desire to look up to a man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On this we shall have to disagree.  I think it's better if we have more rational people in law enforcement, not less.

VES

If a particular job requires violating individual rights, then having more rational people doing it doesn't make it right. It's immoral to do that job, period. Do you really not see that?

Anyway, this is a side issue and I will let it go. I found the Martha Stewart thread, where everything I would have said had been well expressed already.

I noticed by the way that this topic is now 20 pages long, over a year old, and not much closer to a conclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't, and I never claimed that it did. The similarity in position between CF and AR is mainly in claiming that the essence of femininity is the desire to look up to a man.

There were two thoughts in the statement by CF which you responded to: looking up and material wealth. I took you to be responding to both, and took exception with the latter. Apparently, you were focused on the former. A misunderstanding.

But, I am curious. If you will, in this context, what does "look[ing] up to a man" mean to you? And, what do you consider to be the "essence of feminity?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I noticed by the way that this topic is now 20 pages long, over a year old, and not much closer to a conclusion.

That's because the topic is "Homosexuality," and most of you keep talking about something else! While you were gone this past holiday weekend, I made several posts that were actually on-topic. :)

p.s. I really like the picture in your avatar, including the title. Being a dad is great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a particular job requires violating individual rights, then having more rational people doing it doesn't make it right. It's immoral to do that job, period. Do you really not see that?

No, it's not a matter of not seeing that there are certain aspects of law enforcement that are immoral and should be changed. And where did I say anything about making anything "right"? I simply disagree with your assessement that it should be left to people who are less rational, which is in essence what you are saying. The facts of reality are that people will choose to do this job, and as such I think it's best, not perfect, that people with some sense of objectivity and rationality do it.

If you think this makes me an immoral person, so be it. Your opinion in that regard means little to me. You certainly wouldn't be the first person to think ill of me and you certainly won't be the last.

But here's something to think about. Even without immoral laws, policing would still require the violation of individual rights. It's the nature of the job. Would you have no police at all?

VES

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But here's something to think about.  Even without immoral laws, policing would still require the violation of individual rights.  It's the nature of the job. 

Just to clarify, policing should not require the violation of individual rights. Police do not initiate force; they use retaliatory force, which is perfectly proper and not at all a violation of rights.

I also want to say that I for one am greatly pleased to know that our police force has such a fine example of humanity as RationalCop in its ranks. I think that RationalCop is justifiably proud of the work that he does and he has every reason to expect the appreciation of the citizens whom he protects. I think it patently absurd to attempt to condemn the police -- those who uphold law and order in our society -- because of some non-objective laws that have been passed by the legislature and upheld by the courts. The proper approach is not to abandon the rule of law, but to fight to have non-ibjective laws changed. I salute RationalCop for the work that he does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to clarify, policing should not require the violation of individual rights. Police do not initiate force; they use retaliatory force, which is perfectly proper and not at all a violation of rights.

That is correct. I (unclearly) meant to say that the exercise of police power is by nature a negative thing, though it is correct that it's a response to someone who has in most cases given up their rights by their illegal (or forceful) actions. We do have to stop people sometimes who haven't done anything wrong but perhaps fit descriptions of suspects, etc., in order to effectively investigate some crimes.

I salute RationalCop for the work that he does.

Thanks you kind sir!

VES

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you keep saying. But I ask again: Why not? Romantic love is a response to values,  so why cannot a man respond that way to the nature of the character in the woman that is required to achieve that material wealth?

[...]

I cannot figure out what you really mean. In the paragraph above you said a man will not be romantically excited, but now you say he will love her more for it. If it is not a sort of platonic love, then isn't it romantic love?

He loves her for her material success. He loves her romantically for her looks, her demeanor, her way of interacting with children, her way of looking up to him, and so on. In other words, he loves her for her virtues, and he loves her romantically for her femininity.

Of course, if he already loves her romantically, then his love for her material success will be part of that romance, so in the end it "all goes into the same pot." But the distinction is relevant because if he didn't find her feminine enough, he wouldn't love her romantically--but he would still love her for her material success non-romantically.

So her material success is not among the things that triggers his romantic love for her. It is not part of her feminine attraction. While it doesn't detract from it, it doesn't add to it either.

Material success in a man, on the other hand, does (under the right circumstances) trigger a rational woman's romantic interest in him. Why? Because the woman is romantically interested in men she can look up to, and his material success is a reason for her to look up to him. So it is part of his masculine attraction.

I most strongly disagree. It is not the "material success" that a woman responds to, but the nature of the character in the man that made it possible.

That's how I always meant it.

Another man may possess the same sort of character for a woman to love, but he may be in a field where "material success" is not necessarily a consequence of his work.

That's right. I didn't posit material success as a necessary condition for her looking up to him, but rather as a sufficient one. Sure, there can be other reasons for her to look up to him.

(By the way, I note you have switched from "material wealth" to "material success" and "material achievement,"which are not necessarily the same things. However, I take your "success" and "achievement" to mean "wealth," since the whole context of your remarks was how much money a man earns.)

You should take my "wealth" to mean "success" and "achievement" ! Yes, we're talking about how much he earns, but by that I mean earns, not inherits or loots or wins on the lottery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

I am going to bow out of this part of the conversation because I am frustrated in reaching any sort of resolution or mutual understanding. I continue to see contradictory statements -- agreement in one sentence and taking it back in the next -- and I doubt that I can add much at this point that I have not already said. I think that you are fundamentally mistaken on this issue, and, other than saying that I have agreed with and enjoyed your perspective in other areas, I will leave this issue at that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record, while I would say that Capitalism Forever is totally mixed up on the specific issue that this has turned to (income), I would also say that the proper attitude has been presented here by RationalCop, Argive99, and Stephen.

Godless Capitalist, you've drunk a bit too much of the feminist kool-aid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not the "material success" that a woman responds to, but the nature of the character in the man that made it possible. Another man may possess the same sort of character for a woman to love, but he may be in a field where "material success" is not necessarily a consequence of his work. In both circumstances the woman responds to the nature of what the man is, not to some misplaced emphasis on wealth.

Absolutely!

Capitalism Forever: Please do not presume to know what triggers a woman's romantic interest in a man.

So her material success is not among the things that triggers his romantic love for her. It is not part of her feminine attraction.

Her "material success" is the result of the values that drive her. These values are her primary virtue. You are basically saying a man does not fall in love with a woman for her primary virtues, for the qualities that define her.

He loves her romantically for her looks, her demeanor, her way of interacting with children, her way of looking up to him

These are secondary qualities. What has her way of interacting with children got to do with romantic interest. Are you assuming that as an indication of the kind of mother she will be? A woman doesn't need to have children to be feminine.

At any rate, you seem to be saying a man should love a woman romantically primarily for qualities that are not related to her character. Such a love would be quite superficial. You can't even call that "love".

I have been lurking in this forum for quite a few months now, and I have enjoyed reading your posts on other topics. It is quite unfortunate that you hold such views on this matter.

Manjari

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record, while I would say that Capitalism Forever is totally mixed up on the specific issue that this has turned to (income)

Income?! There isn't a single post in this thread where I used the word "income" ! I've been talking about earning money all the time, and in my last-but-one post to Stephen, I made it clear that I did not mean it as a synonym of "obtaining money" :

Yes, we're talking about how much he earns, but by that I mean earns, not inherits or loots or wins on the lottery.

Please read and understand my exact posts before commenting on them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Capitalism Forever: Please do not presume to know what triggers a woman's romantic interest in a man.

The context of this discussion is how rational man or woman approaches romantic love, so I am not making statements about what triggers "a woman's" romantic interest in a man, but about what triggers a rational woman's romantic interest in a man. Or, in other words, about what a woman should love a man for.

These are secondary qualities. What has her way of interacting with children got to do with romantic interest. Are you assuming that as an indication of the kind of mother she will be? A woman doesn't need to have children to be feminine.

Sure. But if a man does want to have children, then--if he is rational--he will be very careful about what kind of person he selects as the mother of his children. He will be much more attracted to a woman who loves children and whom children love back than to a woman who is indifferent towards children or finds them a nuisance.

At any rate, you seem to be saying a man should love a woman romantically primarily for qualities that are not related to her character.

Do I?

He loves her romantically for her looks, her demeanor, her way of interacting with children, her way of looking up to him, and so on.

Do you really think that all of these qualities are unrelated to a woman's character? I'm really curious about what you mean by the word "character," then! What does it entail, and how does a man find out about it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, I am curious. If you will, in this context, what does "look[ing] up to a man" mean to you? And, what do you consider to be the "essence of feminity?"

A woman "look[ing] up to a man" seems to mean not just admiring him for his virtues but to some extent considering him superior to her. It's really hard to tell because as far as I know this is never explicitly explained in Rand's work. Note that there is never any mention of a man "look[ing] up to a woman" because of her virtues, which leads me to think an unequal relationship is implied.

At the moment I do not have a clear idea of what "femininity" or "masculinity" mean; I am not sure the terms mean anything at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's because the topic is "Homosexuality," and most of you keep talking about something else!  While you were gone this past holiday weekend, I made several posts that were actually on-topic.  :D

p.s. I really like the picture in your avatar, including the title. Being a dad is great.

Yup; I thought your posts made some good points. Most people are not really focusing on the fundamental issue eg the nature of males and females (or if they are they are approaching it from a rather arbitrary point of view)

Glad you like the pic, although I wish I could figure out how to make it a little bigger and clearer. It's from a canoe trip we did last summer, when Max was only 2 months. More pics here: http://www.ciw.edu/seager/Max/Canoe/canoe.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Godless Capitalist, you've drunk a bit too much of the feminist kool-aid.

:D My perspective is based on my own experience and observation of other's relationships. If you can point out exactly what you think my error is, I will try to address it and possibly change my position. But so far nothing that has been posted is very convincing to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it patently absurd to attempt to condemn the police -- those who uphold law and order in our society -- because of some non-objective laws that have been passed by the legislature and upheld by the courts. The proper approach is not to abandon the rule of law, but to fight to have non-ibjective laws changed.

It's one thing to obey immoral laws out of respect for the rule of law (although I am not even sure I agree with that). It's quite another to actively participate in violating rights. What if a law is passed that calls for all Arab-Americans to be rounded up and put into internment camps? Should RationalCop participate in that? What if the law calls for them to be shot on sight? Where do you draw the line? Clearly at some point some laws should be considered immoral as a matter of principle, and no rational person should help enforce them. In my opinion the drug laws qualify.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't go so far as to say "masculine" and "feminine" are without meaning. I would say that such concepts are actually bound by physical traits and not by psychological ones.

I am a bit disturbed by the fact that those of us who do not see a black-and-white distinction between the male and female mind are dismissed as being corrupted by feminism and that when a woman makes a point about romantic love another poster suggests she is not rational. These ad hominem attacks do not add to the argument or prove a relevant point.

My position on romantic love and on the nature of men and women is based on observation of real men and real women. There is no denying that, for example, men tend to be more competitive and less prone to emotional outbursts while women tend to be more nurturing and more in tune with their emotions; but these tendencies are not universal and can vary from one individual to another. These observations have led me to believe that the differences, while influenced by physiology are more influenced by culture and upbringing. Given the above, defining masculinity, femininity and proper romantic love, becomes a much more complicated issue and not as simplistic as “producer”, “beautiful, soft and demure” and "hero-worship".

These observations seem so obvious to me that it is difficult for me to avoid the conclusion that those who believe the psyches of men and women are so easily pigeon-holed are not seeking the truth, but seeking to rationalize their chauvinism and their belief in an incomplete view proffered by Ms. Rand.

I do believe this issue is important in the discussion of homosexuality. Given my above position I do not see how a relationship based on the proper values between 2 men or 2 women could be dismissed as romantically improper.

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...