Men & Women, Love & Sex

Psychology and Self Improvement Relationships, Love, Sex, Romance
1

This is one of the most important and–if all goes well–most beautiful aspects of life, so I think it deserves more than being discussed as a side issue in a lengthy, rambling thread entitled “homosexuality.”

So I thought I would start a generic thread about questions like:

  • How does a rational man approach romance?
  • What makes a marriage successful? What are the pitfalls, and how can they be avoided?
  • How does the ideal woman differ from the ideal man, and why?
  • What is wrong with the feminists’ sense of life?

and so on.

Feel free to add your thoughts.

2

This is from that Homosexuality thread you mentioned… It should serve as a good starting point here.

As for this: I am interested in hearing more, but only because I think this is not actually what you mean. Clearly, the woman must also value the man. This part of the discussion, however, should be moved to Cap Fo’s thread in “Miscellaneous.” I will mention this there.

3

For another starting point, take a look at And They Lived Happily Ever After.

4

What is wrong with the feminists’ sense of life?

Just as femininity is the desire to look up to a man, feminism is the desire to destroy man.

It pushes young girls to try to be boys (an endeavor which leads to failure and unhappiness as many post-feminist writers are observing today). It pushes young boys to try to be girls.

Today’s limp-writest effeminate boys are so sensitive it’s sickening.

Observe the controversy over my simple statement that men and women are different. That this could be controversial (and the response I’ve had here is tame compared to that in other fora claiming to be Objectivist) is testament to the vicous power of feminism.

It has used the education system to try to wipe out everyone’s ability to distinguish between masculine and feminine, a goal it has nearly achieved (at least among those who attended school under its reign).

Today, even radicals for reality, reason, selfishness, and capitalism profess either agnosticism towards gender, or else some degree of sympathy for man-hared.

“Rand was a product of her times,” they say time and again, regarding her “old fashioned” views regarding femininity (ignoring the fact that on every issue, Rand’s ideas were as unconventional during her time as they are now).

I’ve seen many marriages based on the “principle” of tit-for-tat. You took out the garbage last night, so I will take it out tonight. I pumped gas into the car last week, so it’s your turn now. Of course, if something requires heavy lifting, the altruist-man is supposed to pick it up.

Childbearing is one of the big distinctions between men and women; accordingly, feminism encourages women not to have kids, but to focus on career instead. Feminism also believes in high taxation, which necessitates two breadwinners in order to retain a middle-class lifestyle for most households.

1 Like
5

There are about nine schools of feminism, I am curious about which particular school you all are refferring to.

6

Nathaniel Branden explores concepts of pleasure, love and romance in an essay entitled “The Psychology of Pleasure”, that was included in the The Virtue of Selfishness.

7

Hey Invictus,

That article, so far as I know, is still copyrighted. Shouldn’t be posted on the internet except in small excerpts.

8

Point taken. I have edited it out.

9

Awesome. <_<

10

I think this is a fascinating and extremely difficult topic.

In “About a Woman President” (in VOR) Rand wrote:

“For a woman qua woman, the essence of femininity is hero worship–the desire to look up to man. ‘To look up’ does not mean dependence, obedience, or anything implying inferiority. It means an intense kind of admiration; and admiration is an emotion that can be experienced only by a person of strong character and independent value judgments […] Hero worship is a demanding virtue: a woman has to be worthy of it and of the hero she worships. Intellectually and morally, i.e. as a human being, she has to be his equal; then the object of her worship is specifically his masculinity, not any human virtue she might lack […] Her worship is an abstract emotion for the metaphysical concept of masculinity as such–which she experiences fully and concretely only for the man she loves, but which colors her attitude toward all men.”

The biggest problem for me is that she does not define masculinity. Now, we could look at Howard Roark and John Galt to see what Rand’s concept of an ideal man is, but this is further complicated by the fact that Rand specifically states that masculinity is not any “human virtue” a woman might lack. So what can it be? In the same essay, Rand encourages readers to look at the “basic motivation” of Dagny Taggert as illustrative of that of an ideal rational woman. It’s been a while since I read Atlas, but what stands out to me about Dagny is mostly her perseverance, her ambition, her willingness to take risks–and her business sense. All of these seem to me to be characteristics that are equally present in Rand’s heroes. While Rand’s heros and heroines seem to have many personality traits in common, the main differences occur among the physical descriptions of Dagny and Dominique versus those of Roark, Galt, etc.

While I don’t want to say that all of the differences between men and women are in their physical traits (nor do I want to deny that there are differences), I think that Rand herself did attribute at least some of the difference(s) to the physical, especially the different “roles” physiologically “played” by the man and the woman during intercourse, specifically that the man, essentially, thrusts, and the woman receives. (I’m basing this on an audio-taped lecture by Dr. Peikoff that I last listened to two summers ago. The tape was entitled “Love, Sex, and Romance,” and I believe the portion I’m referring to was in the Q&A section, though I can’t remember very well. If I’m paraphrasing anything incorrectly, please feel free to point it out to me.) While I understand this explanation, I’m not entirely sure what the implications are.

Furthermore, if femininity is to worship masculinity, what is a man’s relationship to a woman? That is, does he, as a man, worship her femininity? That clearly doesn’t make any sense, for to do so would, by Rand’s definition, mean that he worships her worship of him. Why doesn’t Rand talk about heroine-worship? Frankly, I don’t think she believed such an attribute could exist.

Well, I’ve raised more questions than I’ve answered (in fact, I don’t believe I’ve answered any), and there are a few more I’d like to raise, but I think for now I will just put this out there and see if y’all have any comments.

11

Carla, this may be getting a bit off topic, I agree with everything you state and find your questions valid. I fail to see the difference between Dagny and the male heroes, except that Dagny, as a female, is emotionally and sexually attracted to men. She is as competent and savvy as any of the male characters,

My take on this is that Rand was suggesting women look up to the strength and which is traditionally and physiologically associated with males and maleness. This is certainly true to an extent: women are attracted to strength in males, both in the physical aspect of muscular figures, and the emotional aspect of bravery and character strength. Rand is trying to explain this in philosophical terms, whereas it’s usually explained in evolutionary and instinctual terms (ie, women look up to men and desire strong partners because their maternal instincts cause them to want a strong provider for their family, and someone to protect them).

Are those evolutionary arguments valid, and are they saying in scientific terms the same thing Rand is saying in philosophical terms?

Sorry to add more questions to an already convoluted topic, but I think the scientific angle needs to be addressed. Philosophy can only explain so much of something so tied up with the physiological aspect of being human.

12

CapFor, since you started this thread, I hope you’ll corral us if you feel that we’re straying too much from the topic.

Skywalker, you raise some interesting points.

Rand is trying to explain this in philosophical terms, whereas it’s usually explained in evolutionary and instinctual terms (ie, women look up to men and desire strong partners because their maternal instincts cause them to want a strong provider for their family, and someone to protect them).

I think Rand’s response to evolutionary/instinctual points is often to dismiss them as neither necessary nor sufficient for explaining something about human behavior (given our rational faculty, we are not tied to instinct), but I think that in this case they must play some role. The biology of the human body cannot be ignored when it comes to sex, at least, and the value Rand places on sex between committed partners further implies this. Not being a scientist, though, I really can’t say more on that subject.

From anecdotal evidence (my own personal experience), I find myself attracted to men who seem “manly” in physical appearance and demeanor. But I value mental strength equally in myself (and other women) and in men, so this would seem to leave the purely physical element, but that can’t be right. Romantic love, obviously, is mainly not based in the physical, but in the mental. Perhaps the appeal of outward/physical strength is simply a prerequisite to evaluate a man for further consideration as a romantic partner.

How does it work the other way? What do men look for in women, then? This is where the problem of definitions comes up. Are there specifically “female” attributes, other than Rand’s defintion of femininity (i.e., the worship of metaphysical masculinity)?

13

Carla,

You are correct about instinct playing a role in sexual attitudes. We must remember that rational thought is a choice that must be exercised. When not consciously doing so, our brains revert to their “default drives” which consist of the pre-rational or limbic system. In this mode we are susceptible to natural laws that govern human social behavior. An example of this manifestation in regards to sexual attitudes can be found at the following link.My Webpage

14

Socionomer: Human beings do not have instincts… there are no inborn “default drives.” When not actively reasoning, our subconscious minds do take over but everything in the subconscious was learned, not inborn.

If you are going to even say the word “instinct,” with regard for human beings, in this forum… you had better provide some evidence.

15

Humans certainly have drives and instincts - but they provide him with absolutely no knowledge how to satisfy them. All man’s action is volitional; whether he is hungry or not isn’t. He can override the drive to act on hunger, but he cannot override the fact that he is hungry with the fact that he isn’t.

16

I think what you’re trying to say, Feldblum, is that humans have needs inherent in their nature, but the methods of meeting those needs must be discovered. The word “drive” still implies something too intrinsicist.

17

You’re right. “Nonrational” would be better to describe the limbic system. Impulsive/emotional responses to activity in that portion of the brain still permit volitional choice, it just would not qualify as a “rational” choice or decision.

Perhaps “instinct” better describes how we respond to accidentally touching a hot iron or something like that.

18

MinorityOfOne : Correct, that is exactly what I am saying; only, for lack of the right words, I used the ones available (already used in this discussion).

Socionomer : Recoiling when one touches a hot iron is, as I understand it, below instinct. Recoiling like that is part of the hardwiring of the arm (via the spine), almost like recoiling when the doctor bangs on your knee with the strange triangular hammer. Digestion, heartbeat, etc are subconscious action; that recoil is just like the recoil of a spring. And since I don’t have the rights words on hand here either, I’ll let you all debate my meaning :wink: .

19

Perhaps “instinct” better describes how we respond to accidentally touching a hot iron or something like that.

That is reflex… instinct would be if all human beings were incapeable of forcing their hand onto the iron. Look up the definition of instinct… I think you will agree that we don’t have them (almost all psychologists do).

20

And reflex is the right word.

Reflex is hardwired right into the muscles (and spinal cord). Instinct is (is not, in the case of humans) hardwired into the subconscious.