Homosexuality vs. Heterosexuality

[RationalBiker]

Several people seem to be arguing that the man should be the leader because that's the traditional or common situation, which is not a rational argument.

Who has argued that?

VES

[jfortun]

My response would be that the relationship is more likely to be successful with the man as the leader.  While falling short of "must", it's pretty close.

VES

I believe that you did.

[jfortun]

Can you see Francisco or John Galt "never feeling so masculine as when he stood beside her?" Or Galt "sagging in her arms?"

I can't see this at all.

But (though I doubt it wasMiss Rand's intention) I can almost see Francisco taking comfort in Galt's arms. I can more easiliy see Gayle Wynand taking comfort in Roark's arms. There were moments in the Fountainhead were that relationship seemed only one step removed from a romance.

[jfortun]

It boils down to this:

Man's essential tool for survival is His reasoning mind. Man living qua man, means living by the full use of His rational faculty. It is the exercise of this faculty that makes Man heroic. Men and women are equally capable of exercising this faculty and equally capable of being heroic.

If I grant that hero-worship plays a large role in romantic love and that hero worship is, as Ayn Rand puts it "an intense kind of admiration" then I don't see why this need be a one-way street. Miss Rand limits hero-worship to one object, masculinity, which, to my knowledge she never completely defines, but as Stephen points out she viewed as "the proper symbol of the species..." The question I have to ask myself is it the proper symbol and the only symbol worthy of hero-worship. Given that the essential element of Man's heroism is His rational mind I have to say no.

Artistically speaking it may be easier to portray a heroic figure as a tall, strong and in command man, but in reality that figure it not any more heroic than a tired and hunched Marie Curie laboring in her basment on a scientific discovery. Put another way, the image of the Empire State Building may be more majestic, but the achievement of the English Channel Tunnel is no less heroic.

I say the symbol of one's hero-worship comes down to one's values and perhaps, biological imperatives. As long as those values are rational, than the resulting emotion, romantic love, the response to one’s highest values in another, is fully proper.

[Godless Capitalist]

Vern, in addition to jfortun's quote of you above, there is also this:

Lastly, you are going to need more than two exceptions to dispute what I see as generally prevalent if you wish to change my opinion.

VES

By "generally prevalent" you seem to be implying that current social norms should automatically be accepted as correct (I believe that would be called collective subjectivism).

[Godless Capitalist]

Whether or not, or in what way, Ayn Rand's view of feminity and masculinity could apply to homosexual relationships is a separate issue from the one which we started discussing more than a week ago. My main purpose in discussing this issue with you was not and is not to convince you of the rightness of Ayn Rand's view, but rather to clarify the statements you have made about what her view is.

Fair enough. I think it is ultimately relevant to homosexuality, though. If men and women should rationally have different and complementary roles in a romantic relationship, then the argument against homosexuality might follow. That brings us to:

As I hope I have made clear in my several prior posts, Miss Rand emphatically acknowledged that there is no asymmetry in regard to intellect and morality between a man and a woman. But I think that she held man (masculinity) as the proper symbol of the species as recognition and acknowledgment of the clear metaphysical disinctions between man and woman. In general, man is stronger, taller, and faster than woman.

I agree that that is Ayn Rand's view. What I do not see is why the "metaphysical distinction" ("stronger, taller, and faster") should be of any great relevance in a romantic relationship.

Based on my understanding of what she has written, this metaphysical distinction had profound psychological significance on the proper romantic role of a man and woman. One sees in her characters that man is the pursuer and woman is the pursued. It is woman who is conquered by and surrenders to a man. The man (predominantly) is the initiator of sex and (predominantly) is the one in control.

Perhaps some relationships are like this, but in my experience most (including mine) are not. These parts of Ayn Rand's novels have always bothered me; they sometimes seem more like something out of a cheap romance novel than a serious portrayal of a relationship. I find it a very narrow view not supported by my observations of reality.

To go one step further, even if I accepted Ayn Rand's view, it could still apply to homosexual relationships. After all, one partner is likely "stronger, taller, and faster" than the other and more the leader in the relationship.

Aside: I find "Miss Rand" very odd. She was married, so "Miss" clearly is not correct.

[Capitalism Forever]

She is 5'2", 250 lbs (because of a thyroid condition or something). She also has an intestinal problem that causes thunderous flatulence every time she brings pressure to her abdomen area. [...] So, should you pursue such a woman?

Of course not. My position is that you should pursue the best woman you can get and leave the rest alone. But I'm curious: What are your criteria for which woman a rational man should pursue?

You can tell her virtues by her actions. That I stated in the same sentence as values that you split up and answered here as if I did not say it. [...] You cannot sever the facts in reality, that is why I did not sever them in my sentence as you did which means you misquoted me.

From the lack of punctuation at the end of my quote of you, it is obvious that your sentence continues. I do address the rest of your sentence ("and the actions she takes") right below where I address the first part. So perhaps I "severed words from actions" but I didn't misquote you.

As for severing words from actions, you can do it in reality; in fact, a great many irrational people do. The reason I addressed words and actions separately is exactly that a woman may say sensible things but then fail to act on them.

To put it another way:

Why can I not tell a woman's values from what she says (maybe not even how she says it) and the actions she takes?

You shouldn't be primarily interested in her values but her virtues and besides, putting on an earring is an action too.

Yes! But it is a non-essential. Erring tell you nothing about the morality of a person. What information does that give you? You think you can use errings as a criteria for a mate?

Sure you can use her errings: If she errs all the time, she's no good!

And sure, you can take into account her earrings too. If a woman likes to wear beautiful earrings, it tells you that she thinks she deserves to be adorned--that is, she holds herself in high regard--that is, she is moral. (Moral in this one respect, that is; she may be immoral in other areas.) What's more, she isn't only moral, but also beautiful, thanks to her earrings! (Again, beautiful in this one respect.)

What am I to infer about her. What can I conclude about her character?

You can conclude that she was probably brought up in some good ole' no-nonsense Southern family, which certainly makes her more feminine and generally virtuous than some embittered liberal feminist who's just graduated from Hahvard. So she's not bad--but then again, probably not the best either.

But why do you ask?

Because we are not discussing what the last drunk guy at the bar won't take home at closing. That one washes her hair regularly, and has it neat, is essentially different than the one that let's bugs breed in it. But all the others are optional choices that tells you nothing about her character.

What's an "optional choice" (aren't all choices choices between options?) and why doesn't it tell anything about her character? Aren't all choices influenced by a person's character?

Even when you know everything you can reasonably know it still tells you nothing.

That you, David Hume?

[Capitalism Forever]

But I think that she held man (masculinity) as the proper symbol of the species as recognition and acknowledgment of the clear metaphysical disinctions between man and woman.

IMO the most proper symbol of the species would be a married couple: a strong and resolute man, standing tall, together with a beautiful and delicate woman--also standing tall.

[RationalBiker]

I believe that you did.

Well, then you need to reread my posts. You have the "common or traditional situation" on the wrong side of the "because". The quote you cite does not support the assertion made. I gave reasons why I believed the male dominant relationship was successful, NOT that it was successful just because it was "common or traditional".

Tell me now if you are going to deliberately misrepresent my arguments before I waste any further time.

VES

[RationalBiker]

Vern, in addition to jfortun's quote of you above, there is also this:

By "generally prevalent" you seem to be implying that current social norms should automatically be accepted as correct (I believe that would be called collective subjectivism).

Nope, that's not the implication, but nice try. See my response above to jfortun since you both have the same problem figuring out premises.

VES

[Godless Capitalist]

Sorry if I misunderstood you, Vern, but I really do think your posts were sufficiently unclear as to justify my interpretation. In any case, I stand corrected.

If a woman likes to wear beautiful earrings, it tells you that she thinks she deserves to be adorned--that is, she holds herself in high regard--that is, she is moral.

Wow, that's quite the leap in logic! That's one possible explanation; there are many other plausible ones (including of course upbringing and culture).

And what does it mean if a woman does not like wearing earrings? That she has a low self-image and is immoral? Not necessarily.

I don't see how you can draw any conclusion at all about a woman's character based on earring-wearing. (I am having trouble believing we are even seriously discussing this.)

[RationalBiker]

Sorry if I misunderstood you, Vern, but I really do think your posts were sufficiently unclear as to justify my interpretation. In any case, I stand corrected.

Thank you. As far as the clarity of my posts, I think they are clearly stated, but I'm not going to create yet another issue out of this thread.

VES

[Capitalism Forever]

As far as the clarity of my posts, I think they are clearly stated, but I'm not going to create yet another issue out of this thread.

No need to worry about that. Another issue discussed in this thread would simply be like another drop in the Pacific Ocean!

[jfortun]

Well, then you need to reread my posts.  You have the "common or traditional situation" on the wrong side of the "because". The quote you cite does not support the assertion made.  I gave reasons why I believed the male dominant relationship was successful, NOT that it was successful just because it was "common or traditional".

Tell me now if you are going to deliberately misrepresent my arguments before I waste any further time.

VES

your use of the phrase

While falling short of "must", it's pretty close.

indicates that you are not just talking about the IS but the SHOULD.

You haven't really offered any reason to support why it should be that way- just that it generally is that way (i.e. tradition). I accept that it generally is, but no one has offered a compelling argument that this isn't a cultural phenomena rather than a biological one. I believe such a distinction is important to this argument. If you have made an argument beyond that of men being physically stronger than women, then I missed it.

So I was not deliberately misrepresenting anything, just recounting what appeared to be your postion. Why immediately make accusations of dishonesty?

[jfortun]

And sure, you can take into account her earrings too. If a woman likes to wear beautiful earrings, it tells you that she thinks she deserves to be adorned--that is, she holds herself in high regard--that is, she is moral. (Moral in this one respect, that is; she may be immoral in other areas.)

Or you could conclude that this woman derives self-esteem from that others think about her appearance.

You can't actually know either way without talking to this woman with the earrings.

[RationalBiker]

So I was not deliberately misrepresenting anything, just recounting what appeared to be your postion.  Why immediately make accusations of dishonesty?

My posts on here are a matter of record and you can refer back to them if you choose. I HAVE given reasons contrary to how you are misrepresenting my position. That you choose to ignore them doesn't mean they don't exist.

You taking one sentence out of the context of the entirety of our discussion does not make your case.

I can see no further need to discuss this with you if you insist in ignoring what I have already presented and try to twist it some other way.

VES

[Thoyd Loki]

Of course not. My position is that you should pursue the best woman you can get and leave the rest alone. But I'm curious: What are your criteria for which woman a rational man should pursue?

I am glad you asked.

I don't think that it is the same as choosing a shirt, so the criteria is very small. Some things he is going to have a choice about, some he is not.

I think every rational man would agree that what you would want is for her to have all the Objectivist virtues, at least to some degree, unless you are actively seeking an Objectivist. I met my wife before, so it wasn't an explicit thing for me as yet.

That is just the moral criteria, and every rational man should have that as the guide. Look through the list of virtues with your ideal woman in mind and then take that virtue out of the woman. Don't leave her alone with the poolboy!

I think all the rest is up to you! I love a bright sunshiny sense of life, sexually respondent (or, after 35, demanding B ) . I like em tall, and they have to satisfy my favorite part of the female - the butt, yes, the butt. Jewelry or no-don't care. Dress, whatever as long as it isn't sweats-like Jerry Seinfeld says that is just telling world you've given up hope. 

As for severing words from actions, you can do it in reality; in fact, a great many irrational people do. The reason I addressed words and actions separately is exactly that a woman may say sensible things but then fail to act on them.

That is why they were not seperated in my sentence in the first place.

You shouldn't be primarily interested in her values but her virtues and besides, putting on an earring is an action too.

My mistake, I should have put both of them in there. I don't think however it should be any wiser to concentrate on virtues vs values. Her virtues (or lack of) will tell her values, and that, ultimately is the information that we need.

Putting on an erring is a NON-essential!

And sure, you can take into account her earrings too. If a woman likes to wear beautiful earrings, it tells you that she thinks she deserves to be adorned--that is, she holds herself in high regard--that is, she is moral. (Moral in this one respect, that is; she may be immoral in other areas.) What's more, she isn't only moral, but also beautiful, thanks to her earrings! (Again, beautiful in this one respect.)

Or, maybe she's a hooker! Or she stars in gangbang videos! Maybe she thinks she is worthless and has to have all the accessories to make her feel better about herself. You have heard about the phenomena of the beautiful women with low self-esteem haven't you?

You can conclude that she was probably brought up in some good ole' no-nonsense Southern family, which certainly makes her more feminine and generally virtuous than some embittered liberal feminist who's just graduated from Hahvard. So she's not bad--but then again, probably not the best either.

That is one possibility out of dozens of others. How do you know she's not the best? By what standard is she being judged not the best? And, then again maybe she's worse than not bad, she could be wicked to the core.

I wanted a counter example to see how you would evaluate such a person.

What's an "optional choice" (aren't all choices choices between options?) and why doesn't it tell anything about her character? Aren't all choices influenced by a person's character?

I like beans. My wife likes squash. My dad likes toast. A neighbor of mine like squid. These are all legitimate options, and nobody's choice here is better than anyone else's. But, let's say there is a weirdo that likes to eat dirt and cat feces. This guy is out of the bounds of legitamate options.

Likewise almost all hairstyles are on a par with each other as choices on the same level. Some are better suited for some others and visa versa. But, the dirty chick that never washes it and has bugs in it is not participating in an option that is on par with the numerous hair styles there are.

I'm having baby back ribs tomorrow night. That is a choice, doesn't say a lot about my character though.

[Thoyd Loki]

I screwed up that last post, kind of hard to figure out who is addressing whom there.

[stephen_speicher]

But (though I doubt it wasMiss Rand's intention) I can almost see Francisco taking comfort in Galt's arms.  I can more easiliy see Gayle Wynand taking comfort in Roark's arms.  There were moments in the Fountainhead were that relationship seemed only one step removed from a romance.

I suspect you are reading more into this than was actually there. The love and affection one (heterosexual) man can feel towards another is certainly more than "one step removed" from a romantic involvement. It is not a matter of degree; it is a difference in kind.

[jfortun]

I suspect you are reading more into this than was actually there. The love and affection one (heterosexual) man can feel towards another is certainly more than "one step removed" from a romantic involvement. It is not a matter of degree; it is a difference in kind.

I didn't say it wasn't a big step!

[stephen_speicher]

Perhaps some relationships are like this, but in my experience most (including mine) are not. These parts of Ayn Rand's novels have always bothered me; they sometimes seem more like something out of a cheap romance novel than a serious portrayal of a relationship. I find it a very narrow view not supported by my observations of reality.

As stated, your "observations of reality" are the relationships you observe of those around you. Miss Rand did not derive her principles and values, nor did she develop her psychology relating to romance, by surveying the existing relationships and psychologies of others. If Objectivism was predicated on a slice-of-life observation, we would have a philosophy dedicated to altruism rather than rational self-interest. So, as I said in my previous post, whether this resonates with you is not an issue I care to pursue.

Aside: I find "Miss Rand" very odd. She was married, so "Miss" clearly is not correct.

Miss Rand's married name was Mrs. Frank O'Connor, but she chose to be known professionally as Ayn Rand. As such, both "Ayn Rand" and "Miss Rand" are completely appropriate. These were the titles she preferred, as you can tell if your read the various publications she edited with third-party references to herself.

[Godless Capitalist]

The term "miss" in the English language refers to an unmarried woman, so no it is not appropriate (any more than it would be appropriate for me to refer to myself as "Mrs Smith").

As stated, your "observations of reality" are the relationships you observe of those around you. Miss Rand did not derive her principles and values, nor did she develop her psychology relating to romance, by surveying the existing relationships and psychologies of others. If Objectivism was predicated on a slice-of-life observation, we would have a philosophy dedicated to altruism rather than rational self-interest. So, as I said in my previous post, whether this resonates with you is not an issue I care to pursue.

I should have been more clear. I was referring mostly to myself and my wife, and also to other couples we know who are quite rational. I did not intend to refer to existing society in general.

Now, if you can explain the basis for Ayn Rand's psychology relating to romance, please do. So far I am not seeing any solid foundation for it.

[stephen_speicher]

The term "miss" in the English language refers to an unmarried woman, so no it is not appropriate (any more than it would be appropriate for me to refer to myself as "Mrs Smith").

When Ayn Rand used "Mrs." she properly referred to "Mrs. Frank O'Connor." When a married woman keeps her own name, or uses a professional name, the modern common usage of a title is "Ms." Ayn Rand rejected that title, which became a symbol of the feminist movement in the 1960s, and she opted to use "Miss" with her professional name. Many of us likewise reject the modern-day usage of "Ms.," just as many of us reject the commonplace usage of "selfish." Regardless, those of us who respect Ayn Rand acknowledge her choice and use her preferred title of "Miss Rand." Anything further on this, please feel free to contact Emily Post.

I should have been more clear. I was referring mostly to myself and my wife, and also to other couples we know who are quite rational. I did not intend to refer to existing society in general.

In prior posts, and in other threads, you have also expressed commonplace views, so your protestations notwithstanding, nothing I said is changed by your comments here.

Now, if you can explain the basis for Ayn Rand's psychology relating to romance, please do. So far I am not seeing any solid foundation for it.

When you characterize the relationships presented in Ayn Rand's novels as more "like something out of a cheap romance novel than a serious portrayal of a relationship," I am not at all surprised that you find difficulty in grasping the issue. I'm afraid I cannot be of any further help with this.

[KevinD]

These parts of Ayn Rand's novels have always bothered me; they sometimes seem more like something out of a cheap romance novel than a serious portrayal of a relationship. I find it a very narrow view not supported by my observations of reality.

One brief observation of reality: Over a billion dollars worth of "cheap romance novels" are bought every year — by women.

Another interesting tidbit: The majority of romance readers are married.

Just a little food for thought.

[Capitalism Forever]

You can't actually know either way without talking to this woman with the earrings.

That's correct.