Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Homosexuality vs. Heterosexuality

Rate this topic


RationalEgoistSG

Recommended Posts

I won't because in neither of your examples did the man marry the woman for her money. Nor did Frank O'Connor marry Ayn Rand for her money.

OK, fine. How about defending the general idea that it is acceptable for anyone to marry for money? And how about responding to the points in my earlier response? (the one starting with :D ) I really am genuinely confused by your position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

How about defending the general idea that it is acceptable for anyone to marry for money? And how about responding to the points in my earlier response? (the one starting with  :D ) I really am genuinely confused by your position.

As long as you hold on to the premise that men and women only differ anatomically, you will necessarily be confused by whatever I say, as my position is based on recognizing the psychological differences between men and women. Tell me when you've recognized them and then we'll talk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as you hold on to the premise that men and women only differ anatomically, you will necessarily be confused by whatever I say, as my position is based on recognizing the psychological differences between men and women. Tell me when you've recognized them and then we'll talk.

As an aside, is it your position that psychological differences have their root in genetics and/or physical structure rather than culture?

I've always thought that Rand's view of femininity and masculinity were somewhat of an era rather then fully describing the permanent characteristics of man and woman-kind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as you hold on to the premise that men and women only differ anatomically, you will necessarily be confused by whatever I say, as my position is based on recognizing the psychological differences between men and women. Tell me when you've recognized them and then we'll talk.

How do do these differences justify the following statement:

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

The ability to earn money does say some good things about the character about a man, but it does not paint a complete picture of that man. For example, Michael Moore earns a very good living, but that sole fact does not make him heroic and worthy of female devotion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CF:

What don't you explain what you think those psychological differences are? I am open to the idea that they exist, just have not seen any convincing evidence/argument yet.

Also, in line with jfortun's post, are you holding that those psychological differences are a result of genetic factors? What does that say about free will? If you hold that they are genetic, then the position that homosexuality is a result of "feminization" of the brain (in males) seems equally defensible.

If you hold that it is not genetic and rather arises from factors such as males' greater physical strength, that (as I have said) is superficial. Or are there other factors, and if so what are they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a rational culture, the psychological differences will have their roots in physiology.

please please PLEASE explain yourself further.

How and why do you think physiological differences will (deterministically?) lead to psychological differences? How does that not conflict with free will?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wh[y] don't you explain what you think those psychological differences are?

Imagine an ideal man, then imagine an ideal woman. Imagine what their voices are like, how they talk, how they walk, how they interact with men, how they interact with women, what clothes they wear and why, what vehicles they drive, what they shop for, etc. Surely they don't act the same way, do they?

are you holding that those psychological differences are a result of genetic factors? What does that say about free will?

For a very short man, it would be futile and therefore immoral to dream about becoming a star basketball player. For a tall guy, the same is not true. Here we have a psychological difference resulting from genetic factors. What does that say about free will?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see your point about the basketball player.

Imagine an ideal man, then imagine an ideal woman. Imagine what their voices are like, how they talk, how they walk, how they interact with men, how they interact with women, what clothes they wear and why, what vehicles they drive, what they shop for, etc. Surely they don't act the same way, do they?

:lol: Women's voices and how they walk are difference from mens' for physiological reasons; what does that have to do with their personalities?

What clothes males and females wear is cultural and in any case many people wear unisex t-shirts, jeans, sweats, etc.

vehicles? Here I am really :confused:

You have made a pretty strong claim. Please provide something solid to back it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imagine an ideal man, then imagine an ideal woman. Imagine what their voices are like, how they talk, how they walk, how they interact with men, how they interact with women, what clothes they wear and why, what vehicles they drive, what they shop for, etc. Surely they don't act the same way, do they?

Just thought of something else ... except for the passages relating to their physical appearances and their relationships with the opposite sex, the characters Howard Roark and Dagny Taggart could just as well have been female and male, respectively.

To me the traits of an ideal man and ideal woman would be exactly the same, except for the specifics of physical attractiveness, which are different only for physiological reasons and are not primary to being "ideal" anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What clothes males and females wear is cultural and in any case many people wear unisex t-shirts, jeans, sweats, etc.

I told you to imagine an ideal man and an ideal woman, not just any old person from any old culture.

:lol: Women's voices and how they walk are difference from mens' for physiological reasons; what does that have to do with their personalities?

[...]

vehicles? Here I am really :confused:

Didn't take long for my prophecy "you will necessarily be confused by whatever I say" to come true, did it! You need to recognize these psychological differences yourself; there is no hope anyone can explain them to you as long as you base your ideas on feminist assertions instead of sense experience. As I said, get back to me when you understand why your girlfriend did not appreciate the Harley you bought for her birthday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, my ideal man and woman will wear different clothes, partly because of physical differences and partly because of my own cultural biases. (although a woman in a men's-style suit can be quite attractive and sexy) But what does that have to do with being ideal for a romantic relationship? (and in any case my ideal woman does not wear clothes at all. :lol: )

I am basing my ideas on sense experiences, or at least my interpretation of them. I am focusing on fundamental personality and character characteristics, whereas you seem obsessed with trivial things like voice pitch.

The Harley is an excellent example but for me not you. I know several women who like riding motorcycles and they are happily straight. My wife and I drive a Subaru Impreza WRX (which for those who don't know is a very fast fun car often thought of as a young guy's car) Getting it was my idea but she really enjoys driving it too. So what? Does that somehow make her less "feminine"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What clothes males and females wear is cultural and in any case many people wear unisex t-shirts, jeans, sweats, etc.

I don't think that proper clothing is subjective, as you suggest.

Post #3 in this thread sums it up nicely:

http://objectivistsr.us/index.php?showtopic=1400

Unisex clothing is not proper fashion by the standard outlined there, which is IMO the proper objective standard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You need to recognize these psychological differences yourself; there is no hope anyone can explain them to you as long as you base your ideas on feminist assertions instead of sense experience.

These differences between men and women you sense differ very wildly across generations, cultures and sub-cultures. It is not feminisim that teaches this, it is what is easily observable in reality. There are some common traits within each sex but I fail to see how those traits make it possible for anybody to deduce any given relationship's propriety beyond that it be based on mutual sharing of rational values.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CF

For a very short man, it would be futile and therefore immoral to dream about becoming a star basketball player.

What is wrong with dreaming? I can't become everything I want to be, I try at those I do, and sometimes I daydream about the others. What if this unfortunate guy loved basketball from the time he was three, before he knew he'd be really short? He goes on to pursue other things in his life, but that stays in the back of his mind the whole time. He likes to watch basketball, and maybe he'll lean back and pretend one of the players is himself (like Fletch did, when he was watching the Lakers), and fantasize about something he loves. That is immoral? Now, if you say that he is doing it to the detriment of his well being-ok. But, on the face of it your statement is really psychologically a straight-jacket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inspector: I wasn't suggesting that. Certainly a business suit would be proper clothing to wear to a job interview whereas a track suit would not be.

You're reading the wrong part of that post. Here, this is what I meant (emphasis mine:

Clothing in general and especially specific to Formal Wear should be gender specific. For women as well as men there are different essential attributes to be accentuated. Clothing should be made to draw specific attention to those details which highlight the essential physical attributes of “womanness” or “manness” but at the same time reserve a modesty and respect for one’s esteem and value.

This involves designing clothing which follows and accents natural lines and proportions as well as shape while at the same time not simply exposing broad sections of flesh with no respect for one’s self.

Examples of NOT following these basic principles can be seen all over the fashion world and are a testament to fashion’s importance.

Clothing which is overly baggy concealing the shape and figure of the wearer. This kind of clothing belies a certain aesthetic evasion and physiological insecurity, someone who for some reason or other is not comfortable with making decisions.

Clothing which clashes with natural features of the body. Seams or folds attempting to run counter to a natural line or shape, or grotesquely exaggerating one can either represent this. Designing clothing that draws attention and focus towards inessentials. This represents an attack on the beauty of women in particular as they have borne the brunt of this assault. Simply look at the clothing that most of the “fashion world” turns out to concretize this one. Observe the frail, meek, and shapeless creatures those who design clothing today idolize and worship. Models who are as physically devoid of distinction as they can possibly be whilst still living further subject themselves to aesthetic clashes with what lines and curves yet remain in an attempt to destroy all rational standards of physical beauty. Not all designers do this, but they are the exceptions.

Wearing clothing which although designed for your gender accentuates the attributes of the opposite. This is just plain dishonest.

Now, to answer your next question

But what does clothing have to do with the topic at hand at all?

You made the claim that clothing differences between men and women were cultural and not objective. I disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I won't because in neither of your examples did the man marry the woman for her money. Nor did Frank O'Connor marry Ayn Rand for her money.

Well, I'll have to refer you back to your original quote because you did not stipulate it, or the original person that snipped this, cut off some of your context. Of which, I think you would have mentioned by now.

I also missed the beauty of a last sentence in that first paragraph. A woman gains man by beauty, a man gains by productive ability? Hey, I work in a big sports bar, I see beauties all day long, are they all worthy of my productive charms?

And what about your really bad caste system there of women marrying for money, but men can't do the same. What sterile, "1 attribute for each existent" world is this?

CF

QUOTE

QUOTE(Capitalism Forever @ Dec 27 2003, 01:49 PM)

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.

You see, you simply state that he earns less than she does. You did not mention the motive of the marriage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You made the claim that clothing differences between men and women were cultural and not objective. I disagree.

Why can't they be both? ie there are some objective principles but still lots of variation from culture to culture?

Anyway, let's say you are right. So what? What does that have to do with homosexuality and the proper nature of romantic relationships? I can find a well-dressed man esthetically pleasing just as I can a well-dressed woman but only the woman is sexually attractive to me. Why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should put who the quote is from! Never mind if it is not from Capitalism Forever. I had just got done reading one of his other posts and then saw yours and I thought you were posting his. Going from his previous quote to that had me thinking by god!

Give me a link to the entire post could you? Sorry about the confusion.

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...