Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Homosexuality vs. Heterosexuality

Rate this topic


RationalEgoistSG

Recommended Posts

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.

Heroism is concerned, not just with "exercising" the rational faculty, but using it to identify reality. One significant fact of reality is the physiological fact that the male is the initiator and sustainer of the sexual relationship. This has profound psychological consequences for both sexes.

I'll again offer by essays explaining feminine psychology to anyone who would like them. Just e-mail me at [email protected].

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Heroism is concerned, not just with "exercising" the rational faculty, but using it to identify reality.  One significant fact of reality is the physiological fact that the male is the initiator and sustainer of the sexual relationship.  This has profound psychological consequences for both sexes.

I'll again offer by essays explaining feminine psychology to anyone who would like them.  Just e-mail me at [email protected].

What physiological fact leads to the conclusion the male is or must always be the initiator and sustainer?

The threat of a man's potential use of force? If so, I don't think the threat of rape is a valid basis for determining proper sexual roles and masculine/feminine psychology.

Edited to add: In the context of an existing relationship how can the threat of rape continue to be an influence on her psychology?

Edited again to add: Betsy- I have just received your articles and I may flood with questions and possibly some objections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What physiological fact leads to the conclusion the male is or must always be the initiator and sustainer?

If a man isn't interested in a particular woman and isn't sexually aroused, NOTHING HAPPENS.

It is the man's choice that initiates and sustains a sexual relationship. He chooses. She IS CHOSEN. That has consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a man isn't interested in a particular woman and isn't sexually aroused, NOTHING HAPPENS.

It is the man's choice that initiates and sustains a sexual relationship.  He chooses.  She IS CHOSEN.  That has consequences.

Within the context of a relationship it does happen that a man is not interested in sex and the woman chooses to initiate. In my relationship, my wife may initiate after which I become aroused and maybe (ok, always) choose to follow through. But it is also the case that I may attempt to initiate and she chooses not to be interested. Within the context of a relationship the woman DOES have a choice. My being or not being interested has no effect without her being or not being interested. We both choose and are both chosen. If the choice matters to a woman's psychology in an irrational relationship, why does it not matter in an rational one?

Outside the context of a relationship, I have a hard time defining a woman's metaphysical status according to the possible actions of a irrational man, i.e. rape. I can't introspect on this issue so if other women car to weigh in on this issue I would be very interested in hearing your thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

When we speak of "values" in a philosophical context, we mean the things a person values in life and tries to gain and keep. So, for me, it doesn't directly matter what "her values" are (= what she values); rather, what matters to me is what I can value about her. Her virtues are one thing I can value about her; her earrings are another.

Putting on an erring is a NON-essential! :)

Non-essential in what regard? And why should the "non-essentiality" of this action stop me from valuing the beauty it results in and the character that made it possible?

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.

What you describe above is the difference between irrational choices on the one hand and choices influenced by personal factors on the other hand.

A rational choice is a choice based on a hierarchy of values derived objectively from one's foremost value--namely, one's own life. (Correspondingly, an irrational choice is any choice not based on such a hierarchy of values.) Now, since a rational choice is based on one's personal hierarchy of values, it will often be influenced by personal factors. Your body responds positively to beans, so you choose to eat beans in preference to (say) peas. Your neighbor's body responds more positively to squid, so that's what he chooses to eat. John cuts his hair short because that's the way Janet likes it; Janet lets it grow long because that's how John likes it. Different personal circumstances result in different outcomes of rational choices.

But the fact that you choose to eat beans and not cat feces, or that Janet lets her hair grow long instead of shaving her head bald, tells me that you have made, in this respect, a rational choice instead of making an irrational choice. So it does tell me something about your character!

And, if I know Janet well enough, I can learn about not just one of her choices, but LOTS of them:

Is she rational in her choice of hair style?

Is she rational in her choice of food?

Is she rational in her choice of clothing?

Is she rational in her choice of holiday destinations?

Is she rational in her choice of books to read?

Is she rational in her choice of people to befriend?

Is she rational in her choice of jewelry?

Is she rational in her choice of which party to vote for?

Is she rational in her choice of what car to drive?

etc.

etc.

etc.

If I can see that she makes all of her choices rationally, I can conclude that she is a rational person. If, in addition, her genes and her choices combine to make her attractive to me, she is a candidate for marriage!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Capitalsim Forever

If, in addition, her genes and her choices combine to make her attractive to me, she is a candidate for marriage!
Ah, so they are not linked! That was the whole start of this exchange. If you are now saying that you acknowledge the existence of the beautiful yet irrational, beautiful yet second-handed, beautiful yet evil to the core whore-beast, then we should be done here.

I know you'll want to add that the woman would cease to be beautiful to you, and to an extent that would be true. And the more rational the woman the more her genetic beauty (and the rest that she chooses to adorn her beauty with) is accentuated. I'd add that an evil woman would remain "hot" although you'd have to see her out of context from then on for it to be so. You'd have to see her as most men do, a walking corpse, a vassal for man gravy. And a rational woman that is sexually revolting would be sadly unfortunate.

When we speak of "values" in a philosophical context, we mean the things a person values in life and tries to gain and keep. So, for me, it doesn't directly matter what "her values" are (= what she values); rather, what matters to me is what I can value about her. Her virtues are one thing I can value about her; her earrings are another.

If I understand you correctly, never repeat this to any woman that you may want to see again.

But the fact that you choose to eat beans and not cat feces, or that Janet lets her hair grow long instead of shaving her head bald, tells me that you have made, in this respect, a rational choice instead of making an irrational choice. So it does tell me something about your character!
But, my point is that we don't care about the cat feces eating guy, nor the woman with the bugs in her hair, or I guess (never really thought about women with no hair) the bald woman. What I am saying is all the rational ones are on the same level. Now, do you mean the process by which, say, a woman's choice of hair-do is decided upon?

The cat feces eating guy, and the girl with incest breeding in her hair (or the crack hoe on 5th Ave) are not even in the catagory of consideration just as Ozzy Osbourne would not be considered as an organ donor.

If I can see that she makes all of her choices rationally, I can conclude that she is a rational person. If, in addition, her genes and her choices combine to make her attractive to me, she is a candidate for marriage!

Well, that is one piece to a 24 (random number) or more piece puzzle -rationality + beauty. Rationality is a great start for two people to have in common. You do realize that that is only one thing out of many you need, right? Or is this your barest minimum, of the fundamentals, so to speak. Because that I would agree with, without these two to start with, it would be time to move on.

BTW, What will you do if you ever fall in love with a woman that does not wear earrings? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me try turning this around and see what happens:

If a man isn't interested in a particular woman and isn't sexually aroused, NOTHING HAPPENS.

It is the man's choice that initiates and sustains a sexual relationship.  He chooses.  She IS CHOSEN.  That has consequences.

If a woman isn't interested in a particular man and isn't sexually aroused, NOTHING HAPPENS. [unless he rapes her of course, but we are talking about rational relationships, which would preclude any form of coercion.]

It is [sometimes] the woman's choice that initiates and sustains a sexual relationship. She chooses. He IS CHOSEN. That has consequences.

Yup, still makes sense. Why does the man always have to be the chooser and initiator? Simple answer: he doesn't. It can and does go both ways, both in who initiates a relationship and in who initiates sex within a relationship. In any case, they both have to be interested in each other for the relationship to work, so who takes the very first step is not ultimately that important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me try turning this around and see what happens:

If a woman isn't interested in a particular man and isn't sexually aroused, NOTHING HAPPENS. [unless he rapes her of course, but we are talking about rational relationships, which would preclude any form of coercion.]

That's a big "unless." Rationality is a CHOICE, and a woman cannot control a man's choice. That is one factor leading to feminine vulnerability for which there is no corresponding male counterpart. That is why TRUST is a bigger issue for a woman than for a man.

It is [sometimes]the woman's choice that initiates and sustains a sexual relationship.  She chooses.  He IS CHOSEN.  That has consequences.

That is just false.

A woman may TRY to arouse a man's interest, but her attempt can fail because it depends ENTIRELY on the man. Let's say Janet Reno or Hillary Clinton wanted to "initiate and sustain a sexual relationship" with YOU. What would happen? (Nothing, I hope! :rolleyes: )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why?

Well, it depends on whether I understood what you meant correctly. And it depends on what you meant by the term "directly" in that sentence.

Virtues are a means to an end. You have to find (and be willing to find) as close to 100% compatiblity as is possible. You'll never get above 50% because here her virtues are tied to things you are not interested in. It is almost Platonic. I am talking about values like career, hobbies, art, friends, food, tv, subjects of conversation, and on and on.

I would say that you can admire the beauty and all the perfect virtue of another, but if there is not a sharing in some concrete values, this will be a failure. Virtue is the how, you have to share the what.

Ideally this should be a relationship that will last the span of your lifetime(s). You need to be as interested in what she is interested in as much as possible and visa versa. Meaning, not that you have to fake, but that person is to be sought.

As a simple example. Let's say that you find a woman that is an accountant. She loves accounting, it is her life blood. She talks it, lives it, breathes it. You are a writer, you love art, and you like to talk long into the night discussing the metaphysics of Dostoyevsky, a subject that seems like non-sense to this woman and causes her to fall asleep in less than a minute. Likewise you do when she talks about a tax report to some client. You have different friends, she has no sense of art. Just string this out to all concretes. But, you are both entirely rational and you admire all of her virtues, and how hot she looks naked with her earring on (thought I'd throw that in for you :rolleyes: .

This could provide some wide sex for awhile, but I think the chances of something like that surviving are nill at best. There are a lot of days and challenges in a lifespan.

Not to fear though, I think we are slowly building a real concrete woman here. We have to slap some concretes on her though to bring her to full life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a big "unless."  Rationality is a CHOICE, and a woman cannot control a man's choice. That is one factor leading to feminine vulnerability for which there is no corresponding male counterpart.  That is why TRUST is a bigger issue for a woman than for a man.

That is just false. 

A woman may TRY to arouse a man's interest, but her attempt can fail because it depends ENTIRELY on the man.  Let's say Janet Reno or Hillary Clinton wanted to "initiate and sustain a sexual relationship" with YOU.  What would happen?  (Nothing, I hope!  :rolleyes:  )

I understand what you are saying, but a psychology based on the prospect of rape, that is, an aberration of from reason, strikes me as a reversal of how it should be. Recognizing and taking precaution against the potential of rape is rational, basing an entire romantic and sexual psychology on it smacks of a belief in a maelevolent universe.

And it still doesn't answer what of the female psychology within an established relationship? Or is the female response to men set in stone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it depends on whether I understood what you meant correctly. And it depends on what you meant by the term "directly" in that sentence.

I meant that, when I meet a girl, the first thing I ask myself isn't, "So which things does she like?" but "Which things do I like about her?" I may like her hair, her eyes, her clothes, her sense of humor, her political views--as well as the fact that she likes chocolate. So chocolate is one of her values, but this doesn't matter to me directly, only indirectly: I value her valuation of chocolate.

Not to fear though, I think we are slowly building a real concrete woman here. We have to slap some concretes on her though to bring her to full life.

Hey, I don't want to "build" a "concrete" woman--I want to MEET her!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's fair to suggest that this thread, at 25 pages now, be renamed "Sexuality."

Well, it started out as a discussion of homosexuality (and long before I was even a member of this board), so I kept it as the first word of the title, but added a reference to heterosexuality and a description line to make it more reflective of the thread's actual content.

Thanks for the suggestion, though! :confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I meant that, when I meet a girl, the first thing I ask myself isn't, "So which things does she like?" but "Which things do I like about her?" I may like her hair, her eyes, her clothes, her sense of humor, her political views--as well as the fact that she likes chocolate. So chocolate is one of her values, but this doesn't matter to me directly, only indirectly: I value her valuation of chocolate.

Fair enough. Usually one of the first subjects of conversation in dating is going over likes and dislikes anyway. The only point I wanted to emphesize was that you should be looking for values that you do care about directly, those being ones that you can share in. I say that because I can't see two people lasting that have no concrete values in common having that much "fun" as a couple.

I was getting the impression that you somehow had virtues divorced from values leaving you vulnerable to just such a mistake.

Ps. I still wouldn't repeat that to a woman, you may not get time to get out an explanation if it is misunderstood. Or, I'd recraft that to leave no room for other meaning. I showed my wife that sentence just to see a first reaction, and her eyes bugged out of her head! :confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it started out as a discussion of homosexuality (and long before I was even a member of this board), so I kept it as the first word of the title, but added a reference to heterosexuality and a description line to make it more reflective of the thread's actual content.

Thanks for the suggestion, though! :)

Not a problem, CF...anytime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Areactor: Why is the thread titled Homo VS Hetero now?
Three posts up from yours:

Capitalism Forever: Well, it started out as a discussion of homosexuality (and long before I was even a member of this board), so I kept it as the first word of the title, but added a reference to heterosexuality and a description line to make it more reflective of the thread's actual content.

Thanks for the suggestion, though!

VES

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For a second I thought this was a new thread. Not sure I like the title; it's not really either-or, plus bisexuality is also an option.

That's a big "unless."  Rationality is a CHOICE, and a woman cannot control a man's choice. That is one factor leading to feminine vulnerability for which there is no corresponding male counterpart.  That is why TRUST is a bigger issue for a woman than for a man.

I agree trust is a bigger issue, but I don't see how that is an argument for heterosexuality. If anything, it makes homosexuality seem to be a better option, since the partners will be more evenly matched and better able to defend themselves. In any case, I thought we were talking about relationships between rational people so the possibility of rape doesn't seem that relevant.

That is just false. 

A woman may TRY to arouse a man's interest, but her attempt can fail because it depends ENTIRELY on the man.  Let's say Janet Reno or Hillary Clinton wanted to "initiate and sustain a sexual relationship" with YOU.  What would happen?  (Nothing, I hope!  :)  )

Well, again, let's turn it around:

A man may TRY to arouse a woman's interest, but his attempt can fail because it depends at least partly on the woman. Let's say John Kerry or Bill Clinton wanted to "initiate and sustain a sexual relationship" with YOU. What would happen? (Nothing, I hope! ;) )

I'm not sure what basis for the ENTIRELY was. What depends entirely on the man?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand what you are saying, but a psychology based on the prospect of rape, that is, an aberration of from reason, strikes me as a reversal of how it should be.  Recognizing and taking precaution against the potential of rape is rational, basing an entire romantic and sexual psychology on it smacks of a belief in a malevolent universe. 

And it still doesn't answer what of the female psychology within an established relationship?  Or is the female response to men set in stone?

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.

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 .

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CF: very amusing, but camels and goats don't have the rational capacity to enter into proper romantic relationships with humans.

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.

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?

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

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).

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...