Homosexuality vs. Heterosexuality

[jfortun]

A woman's response is quite different from a man's -- all stemming from the physiological differences.  But let's look at the sexual differences from the positive side.

His pleasure is in taking control of her.  Hers is in surrender, letting go of control, and being taken. 

She seeks out a man she can trust so that when she is in a vulnerable position, she feels safe enough to "let go" and enjoy herself. 

He is attracted to her and aroused by her looks.  She wants to be attractive to him and spends time and attention on her appearance in order to arouse him.

Etc.

It can work that way. It can also work other ways, and both parties can still be rational and happy participants.

The one thing I am definitely opposed to is the anti-sexual feminist propaganda that there is no real difference between the sexes and, if there is, it ought to be eliminated.

There are definite differences between men and women, both physically and psychologically, but the differences are often expressed in various optional ways that vary from culture to culture and couple to couple in clothing, mannerisms, behaviors, etc .

I am not looking to eradicate differences between the sexes. I am interested in understanding what is biological vs. what is cultural and what may just be up to personal preference. I think psychology is too much in its infancy to tell us anything definative about the root causes of male/female differences.

The differences are real and ought to be enjoyed and celebrated -- and emphasized.  It makes sex SEXIER.

Absolutely! I just happen to think those differences encompass a broader range of behaviors, desires and goals.

[tommyedison]

Why should the trust required by a woman be greater? Romantic relationship requires complete trust. If a man does not completely trust the woman, he cannot enter a romantic relationship. Same for a woman. How can complete trust have degrees?

[Capitalism Forever]

Why should the trust required by a woman be greater? Romantic relationship requires complete trust. If a man does not completely trust the woman, he cannot enter a romantic relationship. Same for a woman. How can complete trust have degrees?

Let's put it this way: The woman faces a much greater and more direct risk when she enters a romantic relationship with someone she doesn't trust completely.

It's possible for both sexes to take a chance on someone untrusted, but it isn't necessarily good for them to do so--and the disincentives faced by men are dwarfed by the disincentives faced by women.

[tommyedison]

Let's put it this way: The woman faces a much greater and more direct risk when she enters a romantic relationship with someone she doesn't trust completely.

It's possible for both sexes to take a chance on someone untrusted, but it isn't necessarily good for them to do so--and the disincentives faced by men are dwarfed by the disincentives faced by women.

If a woman or a man is entering a romantic relationship without reason or without seriously considering the character, integrity, commitement and values of the other person, then the woman does face more risk. But what about a rational relationship like Dagny and Galt of AS? Dagny does not have to trust Galt more than Galt trusts Dagny. They are not taking a chance. They are sure of themselves and of each other. Why does Dagny require more trust in Galt than Galt in Dagny?

[Betsy]

This is a very narrow view of sex and relationships. There is no need for the man to be always "in control." And why does one person have to be "in control" and the other one surrender, anyway? Why can't it be equal and mutual?.

There's no "need, " "shoulds," or "has to be's" about it. There is only an IS. Males ARE in control of sexual activity. If HE isn't aroused, there is no sexual activity. SHE can fake it, but HE can't. He can LET her take control -- if HE chooses.

Yes, trust is important but for the man as well. After all, she could poison his food. Again, trust in a relationship should not be one-way; it should be equal and mutual.

I'm talking about trust with regard to sex when a woman is in a much more vulnerable position than a man is.

Again, basing attraction and arousal so heavily on physical appearance is very narrow (and in any case could could equally apply to a homosexual relationship).

Again, this isn't a matter of "shoulds" but about what IS. Men ARE more sexually aroused by a woman's appearance than vice versa.

Observe all the magazines and web sites featuring naked women whose customers are men, and the almost non-existent number featuring naked men (whose customers are almost all gay men).

[Betsy]

Why should the trust required by a woman be greater?

From mt "Femininity Essays"

Every man occasionally "gives up control," and an example might

illustrate the issues at stake for a woman in sex.  Imagine that you are

about to have major surgery.  What would concern you?  What would

you need to know?

First, you need to trust your surgeon and believe he is the best you can

get.  Issues of safety and protection loom large.  While trust and

safety are important to your doctor, too, it is obvious why this is much

more crucial for you.  It matters who is operating and who is being

operated upon.  The patient is more vulnerable than the doctor.

In sex, a man "operates" and a woman "is being operated upon" and that's why she is more vulnerable, in a sexual context, than he is.

[Lindin]

Observe all the magazines and web sites featuring naked women whose customers are men, and the almost non-existent number featuring naked men (whose customers are almost all gay men).

Nude male-oriented magazines/websites and gay porn online is most certainly NOT virtually non-existent.

This still doesn't explain how this theory would work in a homosexual relationship. How can two women (who are supposedly both seeking to submit) behave in this way?

[Betsy]

Nude male-oriented magazines/websites and gay porn online is most certainly NOT virtually non-existent.

This still doesn't explain how this theory would work in a homosexual relationship. How can two women (who are supposedly both seeking to submit) behave in this way?

I know about a half dozen lesbian couples and, generally, one assumes the "masculine" role and the other the "feminine" role. When it comes to gay men, and here I know about a dozen couples, all of them seem to exhibit more genuine "equality" than I have ever seen in either heterosexual or lesbian couples.

I don't know why this is so, but I think it is interesting.

[stephen_speicher]

This still doesn't explain how this theory would work in a homosexual relationship. How can two women (who are supposedly both seeking to submit) behave in this way?

I just want to point out, without entering into the details of this discussion, that homosexual behavior is abnormal and it is not clear if and in what way the more general principles regarding heterosexual behavior apply. You do not define the norm by reference to the abnormal.

And, lest anyone misunderstand, by referring to homosexual behavior as "abnormal" I simply mean that which deviates from the more usual, the more average heterosexual behavior. It is not meant in the pejorative.

[Lindin]

I wouldn't even consider it that way. I think human sexuality is far more complex and misunderstood than simply labeling someone as either hetero-, bi-, or homosexual.

Just because heterosexuality is far more common in individuals than homosexuality, I still wouldn't consider it "abnormal;" just as red hair is not "abnormal" to brown.

[stephen_speicher]

I think human sexuality is far more complex and misunderstood than simply labeling someone as either hetero-, bi-, or homosexual.

Well, I for one, with complete understanding and with no loss to complexities, have no difficulty at all labeling myself as a heterosexual male, meaning that I am sexually attracted to women, not men. Do you view your sexuality with less surety than I do?

Just because heterosexuality is far more common in individuals than homosexuality, I still wouldn't consider it "abnormal;"

That may be, but the fact remains that it is. There is an entire array of human characteristics and behavior that is properly classified as being abnormal; meaning, in a factual and non-pejorative way, the characteristic or behavior deviates from the normal. You are, of course, free to use whatever terminology you prefer, but the fact is that a characteristic or behavior that is different from what is "far more common in individuals," is known as being abnormal.

[Lindin]

I understand what you are stating in the aspect that "that which deviates from the norm is abnormal," (which I would agree with to a certain extent). However, with sexuality, I think homo- and bisexuality have exsisted just as long as humans have. This is a unique trait that we, as complex animals have always possessed. Being that it is consistent in all races, genepools, etc. it applies to all human beings.

So simply because something is less common does not always make it abnormal. As my previous example, I stated that red hair is less common than brown hair. It is not abnormal to have red hair though.

What would be abnormal would be for an individual to not have a sexuality. To not produce sex cells or the right levels of hormones in their bodies.

[tommyedison]

I have a question. Although homosexuality and heterosexuality might be explained by hormonal behavior in the future, what about bisexuality? How can a person be bisexual?

[Lindin]

Just as an individual can be sexually attracted to the same or opposite sex, one can certainly be sexually attracted to both.

[stephen_speicher]

I understand what you are stating in the aspect that "that which deviates from the norm is abnormal," (which I would agree with to a certain extent). However, with sexuality, I think homo- and bisexuality have exsisted just as long as humans have. This is a unique trait that we, as complex animals have always possessed. Being that it is consistent in all races, genepools, etc. it applies to all human beings.

Exactly how does someone else's homosexuality apply to me? I really cannot make any sense of your arguments. This all seems to be related to your assertion that "human sexuality is far more complex and misunderstood than simply labeling someone as either hetero-, bi-, or homosexual." I do not doubt that you believe this, but you have offered no evidence in support, nor did you counteract my unequivocal statement that I have no difficulty whatsoever in labeling myself a heterosexual male.

So simply because something is less common does not always make it abnormal. As my previous example, I stated that red hair is less common than brown hair. It is not abnormal to have red hair though.

It is if you were born in Germany, though not so for Ireland. There are certain human characteristics and behaviors that might be considered abnormal in one society or geographic area, but not in another. Being seven feet tall would not be abnormal for a Watusi, but you will be hard-pressed to find a Tall Man's Clothing Shop in Tasquillo, Mexico.

There is no hard and fast rule as to what frequency a characteristic or behavior must occur to be classified as abnormal, yet the concept of abnormality exists because it is a useful designation. But, whether or not you consider homosexual behavior to be abnormal, the main point I made in bringing this issue up has been lost. I commented when you expressed concern about Ayn Rand's and Betsy's view of feminity because you did not see how such a view would apply to two homosexual women. My point to you was that if and how it applies is not clear, but, regardless, one does not define the norm by reference to the abnormal. If you have trouble grasping my point because of the use of the word "abnormal" then feel free to grasp the point as being: one does not define the usual by reference to the unusual.

The views of feminity for a heterosexual woman, as expressed by Ayn Rand and by Betsy, are not obviated because homosexual women exist. You do not need to define the former by reference to the latter. That is the main point I made.

[jfortun]

... regardless, one does not define the norm by reference to the abnormal...

This is precisely why I take issue with a woman's psychology being defined by the possiblity of an abnormal- namely, rape.

[BlueWind]

This is precisely why I take issue with a woman's psychology being defined by the possiblity of an abnormal- namely, rape.

What makes you believe rape is abnormal?

[jfortun]

What makes you believe rape is abnormal?

According the Department of Justice, the percentage of women who have of been victims of rape/attempted rape during their lifetime is 17.6% For men it's 3%, and it is believed that male rape is reported only 1% of the time. An uncomfortably large number, but hardly "normal".

I am not trying to say that rape isn't a problem or that it is rare- I am saying it is abnormal.

I haven't found statistics on the percentage of men who are rapists, but that number is likely to be very very very low; so from that perspective too, it is abnormal for a man to commit rape.

From a psychological perspective is also certainly abnormal behavior.

[stephen_speicher]

This is precisely why I take issue with a woman's psychology being defined by the possiblity of an abnormal- namely, rape.

I agree. That would be utterly silly. But, I have to ask: since no one has suggested that a "woman's pschology ... [is] defined by the possibility of ... rape," why do you even mention it?

[jfortun]

From Betsy's essay "Sexual Surrender"

Because of sexual physiology, the male is the initiator and the chooser.

His consent is required.  Hers isn't.  If she isn't willing, she can be

raped. If he isn't willing, nothing happens.  He chooses.  She *is

chosen*.

For a man, sex is like every other value pursuit.  He chooses a value

and then acts to get it.  For a woman, it is a unique experience.  She

isn't just seeking and gaining values; she *is* the value -- a *sex

object*, if you will.  (What a lovely thing to be!)  For a woman,

participating sexually requires a dramatic mental re-orientation: from

seeking values to being the value sought, from being in total control of

her choices to giving up control and yielding to a man's choices.

Every man occasionally "gives up control," and an example might

illustrate the issues at stake for a woman in sex.  Imagine that you are

about to have major surgery.  What would concern you?  What would

you need to know?

First, you need to trust your surgeon and believe he is the best you can

get.  Issues of safety and protection loom large.  While trust and

safety are important to your doctor, too, it is obvious why this is much

more crucial for you.  It matters who is operating and who is being

operated upon.  The patient is more vulnerable than the doctor.

Sexually, a woman is more vulnerable than a man.  Before she can

participate, she needs to trust her man and feel safe and protected.

Establishing a "romantic context" is so much more crucial for her than

it is for him.  Only then can she feel free to abandon herself to sex,

and surrender to her feelings for her man.

Above it is stated explicitly and elswhere it is implied: that the woman does not choose and that she must trust that a man will choose rationally, or looked at negatively, trust that a man does not force himself upon her- and it is this vulnerability that makes up an essential component of a woman's psychology and her role in a romantic relationship.

[Bowzer]

From Betsy's essay "Sexual Surrender"

Above it is stated explicitly and elswhere it is implied: that the woman does not choose and that she must trust that a man will choose rationally, or looked at negatively, trust that a man does not force himself upon her- and it is this vulnerability that makes up an essential component of a woman's psychology and her role in a romantic relationship.

You're under a huge misunderstanding...I take her meaning in the first paragraph that you quoted above as just a physiological point: a certain part of a man's anatomy is physiologically tied to his arousal, a part of his body that is necessary for sex. Woman has no counterpart to this. Need I go further?

[jfortun]

You're under a huge misunderstanding...I take her meaning in the first paragraph that you quoted above as just a physiological point: a certain part of a man's anatomy is physiologically tied to his arousal, a part of his body that is necessary for sex. Woman has no counterpart to this. Need I go further?

yes you do. I don't think the Betsy's point is only about an erection- but is about a man physically overcoming a woman.

[jfortun]

I want to add that if I am misreading this I will happily stand corrected.

[stephen_speicher]

From Betsy's essay "Sexual Surrender" ...

I see. So, then, even though Betsy clarified and said "That is one factor leading to feminine vulnerability for which there is no corresponding male counterpart," you still assert her view to be "a woman's psychology ... [is] defined by the possibility of ... rape." Exactly how do you jump from ONE FACTOR of ONE ASPECT of a woman's psychological feminity to "a woman's psychology ... [is] defined by the possibility of ... rape"? Can you spell "straw man?"

Look, you do not have to agree with the view of feminity being espoused -- you do not even have to understand it -- but you have no right to misrepresent what has been said.

[jfortun]

I see. So, then, even though Betsy clarified and said "That is one factor leading to feminine vulnerability for which there is no corresponding male counterpart," you still assert her view to be "a woman's psychology ... [is] defined by the possibility of ... rape." Exactly how do you jump from ONE FACTOR of ONE ASPECT of a woman's psychological feminity to "a woman's psychology ... [is] defined by the possibility of ... rape"? Can you spell "straw man?"

Look, you do not have to agree with the view of feminity being espoused -- you do not even have to understand it -- but you have no right to misrepresent what has been said.

Well, that may have been said but what then are the other factors? They are not described in this thread and not in the essays Betsy was kind enough to send along.

I cannot misrepresent what has not been said.