I guess I’m not catching something because I fail to see the similarity between conquering nature and conquering a woman. Why does sex involve the man “conquering” the woman? Doesn’t she want to as much as he does?
“the hero-worship a woman has towards her man makes it possible for her to submit to him sexually.”
Wouldn’t this hero-worship (if it means intense admiration) be what makes him also desire her sexually?
Wouldn’t this hero-worship (if it means intense admiration) be what makes him also desire her sexually?
There are many very long threads all about sex, sexuality, sex-specific behavior, sex-specific mental make-up, Rand’s views on sex, forum members’ views on sex, and even this very question. Get a little creative with the forum search function, and make a cup of coffee, because you’re in for some reading.
I would like to clarify on a previous statement made by Wrath on the Objectivist view that Altruism is “evil” for those that may be confused while reading this thread. Altruism and kindness are two different things. Objectivism does not consider acts of kindness towards others to be evil. It does, however, reject the notion that a person’s existence has no value if they choose NOT to perform these acts of kindness: A notion that Altruism holds to be true. This may be a basic comparison, but i believe that it is an important distinction within this environment.
Altruism and kindness are two different things. Objectivism does not consider acts of kindness towards others to be evil. It does, however, reject the notion that a person’s existence has no value if they choose NOT to perform these acts of kindness: A notion that Altruism holds to be true. This may be a basic comparison, but i believe that it is an important distinction within this environment.
Altruism doesn’t require acts of kindness, just service to others. Altruism holds that your life is not your own, that it belongs to others. The others can be anyone or anything: society, the proletariat, the race, the planet, God, whatever. And the only purpose of your life is to serve these others.
Usually this is depicted as acts of kindness, like helping the poor, the “less fortunate,” endangered animals, etc. But that’s not necesarily so. Even when it is, those whom you are meant to help usually wind up worse off, as you do yourself. Take “universal healthcare.” It seems kind to do something for those who can’t afford medical care, but the result is always crappy medical care for all with not enough of it to go around.
Usually this is depicted as acts of kindness, like helping the poor, the “less fortunate,” endangered animals, etc. But that’s not necesarily so. Even when it is, those whom you are meant to help usually wind up worse off, as you do yourself. Take “universal healthcare.” It seems kind to do something for those who can’t afford medical care, but the result is always crappy medical care for all with not enough of it to go around.
Yes, D’kian, that was a poor choice of words on my part. As you say, Altruism is usually depicted through descriptions of acts of kindness. That is what I meant to clarify (and failed): The fact that people associate acts of kindness with Altruism and therefore, because Objectivism holds Altruism to be evil, view Objectivism as “anti-kindness.” I created my post for those people that may have these associations in mind while reading this thread. In an attempt to be concise I ended up leaving out valuable information. Thank you for your further explanation.