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.
Oh, no, no, no, no, no. HA haha. Why would you think that?? No two people would probably give the same exact answers to an exhaustive survey, let alone men and women. I mean the first part, that you can figure out a woman’s philosophy by her sexual attractions.
I mean the first part, that you can figure out a woman’s philosophy by her sexual attractions.
I think the quote should be read primarily as a philosophical statement, about the inter-connectedness of values. It is an explicit philosophical rejection of the ideas that sexual values have nothing to do with other values.
I’d caution reading this as a statement about applied psychology. In particular, I’d caution against thinking that it is really simple: you observe a woman and from that you infer the philosophy of her boyfriend. Without knowing a lot of detail about their relationship and his motivation, one might be jumping to conclusions.
To take an analogy, consider a statement like this: tell me the nature of the billiard ball, the nature of the table and room, and the nature of your shot, and I will tell you the exact course the ball will take when you hit it.
The “why” of certain sexual values can be pretty hard to figure out. So, while it might be true that one can tell a lot if one questions the man about his sexual values and about why he finds a particular woman attractive, gleaning such facts from casual observation can lead to hasty judgement.
I didn’t mean you can figure out the hilosophy of her boyfriend, I mean that you can figure out HER philosophy by looking at what she is sexually attracted to.
I didn’t mean you can figure out the philosophy of her boyfriend, I mean that you can figure out HER philosophy by looking at what she is sexually attracted to.
Yes, I was addressing that too. We assume that she is attracted to her boyfriend. So, by looking at her boyfriend (her sexual value) one is trying the figure out her philosophy. That is no less difficult than looking at her and trying to figure out her boyfriend’s philosophy.
I’ve always understood that quote as a statement about sexual values being part of a person’s general values. Therefore, I’ve always understood that statement to apply to both men and women.
Yeah, I totally agree.
I’m aware of Ayn Rand’s quotes to the effect that one can tell a man’s philosophy based on his sexual attractions. I’m wondering to what extent people think this idea could be applied. Specifically, it seems to place the locus of sexual attraction at the conceptual level, or at least is in danger of doing that if loosely applied. If that were the case, it seems to me that sexual attraction would be impossible outside out knowledge of another person’s values.
For example, suppose a man walks down the street, sees a tall brunette with nice curves. He doesn’t know anything about her. Are you guys maintaining that he couldn’t be sexually attracted to her, or if he can and is, what does that say about his philosophy? Anything? Or does the philosophical aspect come in later, for instance if the two got to know each other and the attraction was maintained (or vanished)?
From what I understand of some of the forum’s poster’s views on this subject, it is impossible to find another person sexually attractive outside the context of your value in the other person’s values. This means that when you see an attractive brunette, Spano, the only reason you find her sexually attractive is because you are (whether you know it or not) applying your desired values in another person to her. If it turns out, after getting to her, that you find her personality worthless, the sexual attraction will vanish. You can then only have an aesthetic admiration for her, since her body will still be beautiful.
Am I incorrect in my assessment here, those of you who hold this opinion? And those who don’t, why do you disagree, if you would not mind sharing?
I agree JASKN, and I would add that physical beauty is a sign of values in another. It doesn’t mean that that person if utterly beautiful is absolutely the best person in the world, but beauty is not entirely natural and requires an amount of upkeep, an amount of virtue. SO someone being beautiful will reveal that they at least value their appearence, or their health. For instance, if someone didn’t value their teeth and let them rot, that would be a vice, and their ugly teeth and putrid breath would be an indicator of that vice.
In terms of sexual attraction does anyone think that the attributes valued by females is different (or should be different) then the attributes valued by (and found sexually arousing to) males? If so, why would a female find different attributes sexually attractive than a male would? And what attributes should a female (according to Objectivist philosophy) find attractive? What part does the biological fact that only females bear children have to do with this difference, if any? Did the requirements of survival of the human species and the evolutionary forces that brought us to where we are today have any influence on what males and females find sexually attractive? Since females need to survive while occupied by the 24 hour a day task of child rearing wouldn’t they naturally value a highly productive male? And wouldn’t it be in the species survival interest for males to desire attractive, i.e., healthy females? What part does reason play in this? Morality …? Isn’t the moral equal to the rational? Isn’t the rational consistent with reality? Doesn’t reality tell us that man (the human species) exist today because of 4 million years of evolutionary selection primarily based on what men and women find sexual attractive? As Tina Turner’s popular song questions: “What’s love got to with it, got to do with it?”
Does the source of sexual arousal differ for men and women?
Source with respect to what? Both genders respond to what they value, but those values may differ - but they differ between people of the same gender as well.
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”?
That particular quote was referring to males in context, not the general sense of rational beings, but I imagine it would apply the same way to women as well.
‘Tell me what a woman finds sexually attractive and I will tell you her entire philosophy of life.’
I tend to be attracted (yes, sexually) to slender guys with glasses more than strong beefy guys or blond surfer dudes. What can be inferred from this? The slender guy with glasses is the stereotypical smart guy of my society. Therefore, I probably value intelligence more than physical strength. Of course, my attractions change when I learn more about the guy. But until I know something about him, I’ll take the one who looks smart, though he may be physically weak, over the one who looks dumb and strong (no offense to weightlifters out there, I know a lot of you are smart guys. But you know the stereotypes.)
It might apply a little differently, because it’s hard for a guy to look like a man-whore, even if he is one. However, cues like clothing styles still apply (preppy vs. goth vs. slob vs. pocket-protector etc.) The way a person looks says something about what they value, and that’s what people respond to.
Source with respect to what? Both genders respond to what they value, but those values may differ - but they differ between people of the same gender as well.
In other words men (in general) seem to be “turned on” by physical beauty, whereas women (in general) do not seem to be as aroused by the visual image of a man’s body. I don’t know this for a fact but it seems to be the case based of magazines, TV, movies, and discussions that I have had with men and women about this. Why do males value physical traits more so than females do? I am thinking that there is something that goes beyond reasoned out values–to some evolutionary aspect of what men and women seek out in order that the human race survives.
Rsalar,
I think it is pretty clear that there is a difference exactly along the lines you describe. Take Felix’s example of the circulation of Playboy vs Playgirl magazines alone. This is also backed up by many people I know personally and have spoken with, and my own experiences.
But the question as to why this is; that is something I don’t have an answer on and don’t want to hazard a guess. Evolutionary? Learned? Both are possible given the evidence I have, so I really can’t say.
I think it is pretty clear that there is a difference exactly along the lines you describe.
Based on this observed difference what does it say about the difference in the philosophies held by males compared to the philosophies held by females? What can you tell me about his philosophy of life based on the fact that he finds physical features important?
“Tell me what a man finds sexually attractive and I will tell you his entire philosophy of life”?
Based on this observed difference what does it say about the difference in the philosophies held by males compared to the philosophies held by females?
Isn’t it premature to ask that? If we don’t even know if it is based on their choices, then isn’t it jumping the gun to ask what possible chioces those would be?
Isn’t it premature to ask that? If we don’t even know if it is based on their choices, then isn’t it jumping the gun to ask what possible chioces those would be?
Yes, if we are to assume that it is in fact possible to determine a man’s philosophy from his sexual desires … and no, if we assume that it is not. Do you think you are able to determine a man’s philosophy from his sexual desires?
Yes, if we are to assume that it is in fact possible to determine a man’s philosophy from his sexual desires … and no, if we assume that it is not. Do you think you are able to determine a man’s philosophy from his sexual desires?
Short answer: Yes with an “if;” long answer: No with a “but.”
Certainly a man’s sexual desires are a form of evidence in determining his philosophy.
Short answer: Yes with an “if;” long answer: No with a “but.”
Certainly a man’s sexual desires are a form of evidence in determining his philosophy.
So what does the fact that men generally are turned on by physically attractive bodies say about their philosophies (in general)?
So what does the fact that men generally are turned on by physically attractive bodies say about their philosophies (in general)?
It could say simply that they are men. Until we know the source of that one, then it’s not useful to us. It’s the other aspects of their attraction - the ones that can be explained by values - that are useful.
Take Felix’s example of the circulation of Playboy vs Playgirl magazines alone. This is also backed up by many people I know personally and have spoken with, and my own experiences.
But the question as to why this is; that is something I don’t have an answer on and don’t want to hazard a guess. Evolutionary? Learned? Both are possible given the evidence I have, so I really can’t say.
As far as I have understood it, it’s an evolutionary difference - a man’s best chance of passing on his genes involved inseminating as many (healthy=attractive) women as possible, so he evolved to get aroused easily, based on looks. A woman’s best chance involved finding a guy who would stick around to help with the kid, and how he looks doesn’t have a whole lot to do with that, so she is aroused by his character and actual contact more than looks. Maybe this isn’t entirely accurate, but it makes more sense to me than the ‘learned’ idea, because the only thing I can think of that would have taught me to suppress arousal is the social stigma against female masturbation, and that really isn’t very closely related.
Another thought occurs to me: So far I have spoken of biological differences; what I mean is not to say necessarily that it is a matter of brain chemistry but of our biological nature vis-a-vis sex roles. A man’s nature is masculine and his choice in attributes to look for are influenced by this.
If you subscribe to that viewpoint. I know not everyone here does.