Does the source of sexual arousal differ for men and women? If so, how does this quote from Atlas Shrugged apply differently to men and woman: “Tell me what a man finds sexually attractive and I will tell you his entire philosophy of life”?
(edit typo)
To Ayn Rand “man” refers to “rational animal” which includes male and female humans.
To Ayn Rand “man” refers to “rational animal” which includes male and female humans.
Uhm, I think it’s being used in the generic sense.
Fundamentally, they would (or should) be the same, as an attraction to values, but I suppose there could be variation in the particulars. Certainly, men tend to fine feminine qualities attractice whereas women tend to prefer masculine qualities.
Oh do they? Are homosexuals then not men or women?
To Ayn Rand “man” refers to “rational animal” which includes male and female humans.
I think you’ll find, if you read the surrounding passages, that d’Anconia and Rearden were speaking about males, which explains why the next sentence says “Show me the woman he sleeps with and I will tell you his valuation of himself”. The remaining attributes described in the paragraph – “the woman whose surrender permits him to experience—or to fake—a sense of self-esteem”, “the woman he admires, the strongest, the hardest to conquer—because only the possession of a heroine will give him the sense of an achievement, not the possession of a brainless slut” do not describe the traits of sexual attraction in humans. In this passage, “man” refers to “male”. I know of no passage where Rand states that one can learn a woman’s philosophy from who she is sexual attracted to.
Oh do they? Are homosexuals then not men or women?
Which is exactly why I said generally. Homosexuality is difficult, though Leonard Peikoff has some interesting leads in Love and Sex, hypothesizing that homosexuality comes from bad premises formed in childhood.
I know of no passage where Rand states that one can learn a woman’s philosophy from who she is sexual attracted to.
Then you’re not thinking in principles. It matters not what the context of the story was or who D’Anconia was referring to. The OP asked about Rand’s view of sex, and I assume that she held the same sexual standard for females as she did for males, seeing that females are “men” as well.
Then you’re not thinking in principles. It matters not what the context of the story was or who D’Anconia was referring to. The OP asked about Rand’s view of sex, and I assume that she held the same sexual standard for females as she did for males, seeing that females are “men” as well.
So you’re saying that women also like to possess their men (meaning males, not females) and that women seek to conquer men (i.e. males)? I find that to be a quite surprising conclusion. I am thinking in principles, and I think you’ve identified the wrong principle.
Who said I agreed that men should want to “conquer” women. This is the only area I disagree with Rand on, her view of gender identity. The OP asked if one could “tell all about a person’s philosophy by looking at the sexual attractions” and if it mattered if it were a female. The principle at work here is that sexual attraction is a reaction to values, and value systems reveal philosophy/sense of life, and that this works for all men, female and male.
Who said I agreed that men should want to “conquer” women. This is the only area I disagree with Rand on, her view of gender identity. The OP asked if one could “tell all about a person’s philosophy by looking at the sexual attractions” and if it mattered if it were a female. The principle at work here is that sexual attraction is a reaction to values, and value systems reveal philosophy/sense of life, and that this works for all men, female and male.
Values play an important role in relationships, no doubt about that. But I doubt that they are the single cause of attraction. The importance of values for what has elsewhere been called moral sexual attraction, doesn’t invalidate the fact that men and women are initially attracted to different things. How else do you explain that Playboy has a circulation of 3.1 million while Playgirl has a circulation of only 100.000 (50% of which are sold to gay men)?
Then you’re not thinking in principles. It matters not what the context of the story was or who D’Anconia was referring to. The OP asked about Rand’s view of sex, and I assume that she held the same sexual standard for females as she did for males, seeing that females are “men” as well.
I think you’re being rationalistic about this. Females are not “men” in very context.
An evergreen topic, if there was one!
I think the reason this keeps coming up is that there is absolutely no way to deduce that, at a psychological level, masculinity is different from femininity. [i use the terms “masculine” and “feminine” rather that "male and “female”, because that might allow them to apply to homosexuals, though I have no idea if that is true.]
At root, I think the inability to deduce what masculinity and femininity consist of is to root of all debate. One side says: “look at all the thousands of relationships”. To this, the other side replies: “but, it need not necessarily be so; it may not something metaphysical in the nature of man, perhaps it is just learned cultural ritual”. In other words, one side points to instances and says: “observe and use induction”, and the other says, “that’s an invalid induction”.
If one changes the question to: what is the typical case? I suspect one might get a fair amount of agreement. The real disagreement is around the question: is it necessarily so?
Does the above correctly identify the crux of this and similar threads? or am I missing some important issue… some other fundamental dispute that divides the two sides of the debate?
I think you’re being rationalistic about this. Females are not “men” in very context.
Female humans are not “rational animals”???
So Ayn Rand wasn’t a rational animal?
Female humans are not “rational animals”???
So Ayn Rand wasn’t a rational animal?
I think he dropped an “e” off “every” in that sentence. The sentence is true. females are not “men” in every context (or usage) of the word “men”, even by Ayn Rand. When “men” is used to describe male humans, that context is not referring to females. “Rational animal” is not the exclusive definition of the word “men”.
I understand that, but I think in the context that Rand was using in that phrase, even though she was talking about males, it would apply to all men, because in as much as it applies to males, it applies to them qua men, qua rational beings.
Values play an important role in relationships, no doubt about that. But I doubt that they are the single cause of attraction. The importance of values for what has elsewhere been called moral sexual attraction, doesn’t invalidate the fact that men and women are initially attracted to different things. How else do you explain that Playboy has a circulation of 3.1 million while Playgirl has a circulation of only 100.000 (50% of which are sold to gay men)?
Right, the title of this thread suggests that we are talking about initial sexual attraction… Not anything that would create love feelings later on.
Tough question, but i would say that women are turned on primarily behavior patterns and men are turned on primarily by looks. This isn’t scientific at all, just general patterns that i’ve noticed.
I think he dropped an “e” off “every” in that sentence. The sentence is true. females are not “men” in every context (or usage) of the word “men”, even by Ayn Rand. When “men” is used to describe male humans, that context is not referring to females. “Rational animal” is not the exclusive definition of the word “men”.
Sorry about that. Yes, I did forget an “e.”
I understand that, but I think in the context that Rand was using in that phrase, even though she was talking about males, it would apply to all men, because in as much as it applies to males, it applies to them qua men, qua rational beings.
I think Rand did a decent job equating sexual identity with masculinity/femininity and I fall back on that being her stance of what generates sexual attraction. All things being equal between men and women intellectually, morally, etc. the last thing that differentiates men and women is that masculinity/femininity and that is what attracts the opposite sex.
You don’t think sexual attraction has anything to do with morality?
You don’t think sexual attraction has anything to do with morality?
Take a couple sets of answers to the quote:
“I find big boobs sexually attractive”
“I find a submissive woman sexually attractive”
“I find a woman who makes me feel worthy enough to stand beside her sexually attractive”.
You can pull different philosophies out of all of them and personally I can’t imagine a woman’s answers would be exactly the same as a man. If you’re simply meaning that a man and a woman would give different answers and you could figure out their philosophy from them, then I’m in agreement. I’m reading you’re position as a woman and a man would answer the question the same.