Men, Women, Birds, and Bees - Part 3

Part 1
Part 2

Hero Worship
Ayn Rand referred to men as the "Prime Mover" in sex, referring to his size, strength, and the necessity of his arousal for sex to occur, as well as the way in which these facts lead to the man being the dominant partner in sex.  She also referred to the principle of femininity being "hero-worship."

I'm not quite sure what to make of this "hero-worship" comment, so let's explore that.

Heroes are people of high virtue and of course rational men and women admire other people of high virtue.  Virtue is one of those human qua human things, so we can safely say that worship is the more critical portion of the expression with regard to sexual relationships.

But what does it mean for a woman to worship a man?  Rand again

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.

What kind is it?  Because obviously men have an intense kind of admiration for virtuous women of strong character and independent value-judgments.  So, how are they different?

The answer to these questions has really already been addressed briefly.

For women, it is the admiration of his masculinity in addition to those generally human virtues.  It is the admiration for his strength and male physical efficacy, which turns quickly to a desire to be the object of his desire, to be possessed by him.  I think there is a clear indication here that "worship" does include a certain amount of sexual submission which stems from the fact that the woman must accept him into her in sex even if she is the initiator of the sex act.

For men, the admiration is the reverse.  He loves her female-ness, her femininity, her position as that which he will physically penetrate during the sex act.  His desire to to have her and claim her as the most precious value in his life.  I think it safe to say here that we could state the principle behind masculinity has "the pursuit of a heroine."

In either case, people should strive rigorously for human virtues.  The perspective that separates men and woman here is their physical relationship in sex: him penetrating her.

Initiation and Assertiveness
There was significant resistance in our discussion to the suggestion that women are somehow passive in this process, that they cannot "take charge" in either romance or in sex.

I think women certainly can and should take charge of their romantic and sexual lives.  I also think they can seek out a hero in an assertive, but still feminine way.  She might make sure that she can sit next to him in a class or she might give him a come hither look from across a crowded room.  Even striking up a conversation may be in order.

During our discussion, one of the gentlemen in the group related a story in which a woman approached him and actually gave him her phone number.  Although this is fairly assertive, I don't consider this un-feminine or brash.  All she has really done is made it clear that she wants him to call her.

I know that some men find their masculinity challenged when a woman is forward in this and other ways, but I think this is silly.  What man of virtue wants a woman who allows her life to be ruled by accident and caprice?  It is one thing to want a man to take charge in the boudoir, but it is quite another to rely on him to be omniscient.

For instance, I think I am quite a great catch and, although in exploring these ideas of masculinity and femininity I've realized that my own sexual identity does lean toward the feminine, I am willing to court a man if I know that he's receptive.  But how am I to know every time some guy is interested in me?  Sometimes guys are just thick-headed and unobservant and you have to give clear, unambivalent signals that you're interested.

So, ladies, feel free to be clear about your own intentions as well.  And, gentlemen, it is your job to respond to these signals in a masculine way as well.  Call the lady.  Ask her for a date.  Bring her something thoughtful.

Courtship
I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this topic, but I think now is a good time to talk about men and women in courtship.

The masculine role is that of the pursuer and the feminine role is that of the pursued.

Those taking the masculine part should apply their energy toward demonstrating their prowess as an achiever of values, a conqueror in his domain, and his desire to have her.  This is why it makes sense to me that it is traditionally masculine to bring flowers, candy, or some bauble to a date and why men are so eager to get flashy cars and provide outward demonstrations of their efficacy.

I explained during our discussion on Monday that as a man, I have a very strong desire to provide for my mate.  I want to bring him things, nice things.  I want to show off for him. "I want to bring home the kill," I said.  As far as it relates to the sexual relationship between men an woman, this is the masculine role in romance.

The feminine role means directing effort to being that which the man will desire to have.  Wearing pretty clothes that accentuate her distinctly female characteristics, for instance.  (I haven't given much thought to the other concrete ways a woman might demonstrate her feminine desirability to a man beyond fashion, frankly.)

I think the process of courtship can be seen somewhat like a game of one-upmanship.  He does things to make himself desirable to her as a man and she does things to make herself desirable to him as a woman.  Ultimately, as human beings, the hero and heroine are compliments to one another as human beings both in virtue and in their sexual relationship.

Next: Sex as the Omnipresent Elephant in the room

Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at 12:54 PM | Comments (26) | Add Comment
Category: Importance of Ideas
Post contains 1034 words, total size 7 kb.

Men, Women, Birds, and Bees - Part 2

Part 1 is over here.

More Differences Between Men and Women
We should also observe that there are other general differences between men and women. Men are usually larger and stronger. Women are usually curvier and have a bit less hair on their bodies. These characteristics and others are also "givens" with regard to men and women and it is by these traits -- and numerous man-made differences that we will also look at later -- that we identify men and women at a distance or with limited information, after all, you can't really check for yourself like Crocodile Dundee when you go out and about.

Don't let's forget one key fact about sex: arousal for the man is a minimum for sex.  That is to say, he needs to get an erection, while she may not be aroused at all by the act.  Without his erection, reproductive sex doesn't happen.  (I need not point out the ethical necessity for consent between both parties in sex between rational people.)

These traits are the facts that connect the concepts of "masculine" and "feminine" to reality.

I want to remind again that the differences between men and women do not imply superiority or inferiority on either part. If you look back at Rand's remarks, she is also careful to point this out.  So, although men are stronger than women, we do not say that this implies any evaluation in the broader "human qua human" sense.

So, let's look back at what the concepts of masculinity and femininity are for.  Ayn Rand gives us a ready clue in the quotation provided at the start of this discussion. "For a woman qua woman, the essence of femininity is..." Femininity is the quality of being a woman while masculinity refers to the quality of being a man.  Femaleness and Maleness.  And it goes back to sex.  Masculinity and femininity are useful concepts in that they refer to and describe one's sexual identity.

Let's say that again because we did not uncover this aspect of the terminology during our discussion Monday night.

Masculinity and femininity refer to and describe one's sexual identity.

Beyond sexual identity, in other contexts, calling attention to one's sexual identity can read as a non sequitur and even be inappropriate. 

Consider the most negative associations you probably have with machismo. Very macho men are often seen as absurd because they call attention to their sexual identity in contexts and situations in which it really just isn't relevant.  These are guys who give leering looks at women in the office and things like that.  (I accept the notion that being a homosexual male does imply a compromise in one's masculinity.)

The female counterpart to the Macho Man is also not far from our grasp at this point.  She's that weak, prissy woman who abdicates her responsibility to deal with reality for the sake of having a man doing things that she should very well be able to do for herself.  Things like thinking.

Males and Females in Sex
Before we get carried away with how properly masculine men and properly feminine women act while not in sexual situations and what the guiding principle is behind those behaviors, let's get back to the much more fun basics of this discussion.

The physical differences between men and women are not only present during sex (I'm going to stop saying "reproductive sex" and just assume you know that's what I'm referring to and not other types of sex acts.) but because they are metaphysically given, they become the essence of sexual identity as well as its expression.

Our discussion Monday focused primarily on the female sexual identity, but I am primarily interested in male and so you will have to tolerate that.  But if you're a lady, perhaps you can relate to my appreciation for the male sexual identity.
 
In expressing his sexual identity in sex, the masculine man acts with the physical strength and presence of a man.  As a person who appreciates masculinity (this is by no means universal among gay men.  More on this later), I will say that the most thrilling aspect of having sex with a man is his relatively large, solid body and strength.  Those are the concretes, but even a man who is smaller than his partner or not as strong or fit can still project masculinity in the sexual context through even just his disposition and approach toward sex.  Because of those physical traits and the psychological manifestation of those traits, one simply can't avoid the associating the act of taking with the male sexual identity.

Meanwhile, a woman qua woman presents herself as the object of his desire, the thing that he should take.  Her physical softness and smaller stature do also have corresponding mental stances just as they do for masculine men.  Even as she might seduce a man, she emphasizes her desire to be taken, to receive him.

So, what we see here is that the physical differences between men and women manifest themselves in a psychological disposition or attitude within individuals regardless of that individual's particular characteristics because of the concept of "male" and "female" that we form based on those concrete generalities.  This attitude reflects how closely that individual has linked his own individual sexual identity with the concepts of "masculine" and "feminine."

Next up: Hero worship and Initiation

Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at 11:21 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Category: Importance of Ideas
Post contains 904 words, total size 6 kb.

Who Wants More Penis?! Me! Me!

There's a nice discussion of how stupid and wrong circumcision is over at Erosophia.  You should totally check it out and then tell everyone how much better life would be with more penis.

Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at 12:22 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Category: Importance of Ideas
Post contains 39 words, total size 1 kb.

Men, Women, Birds, and Bees - Part 1

Last night, the NY Objectivists had a very long and lively discussion about the concepts of masculinity and femininity.  We didn't reach any sort of ultimate conclusions about whether or not Ayn Rand was correct in her remarks about a woman president (see below) or even about whether or not it is decidedly unfeminine for a woman to even initiate a courtship!

Unsurprisingly, I was one of the more vocal participants in the discussion because I have some rather strong ideas about masculinity, in particular to the role it plays within male homosexual relationships, but I still find myself somewhat at a loss when it comes to completely articulating these ideas.  I hope to clear up some of my thinking on the topic with this and following posts.

Yes, I predict that this will be a series of posts.

What Started It
The discussion was sparked off comments that Ayn Rand made to McCall's magazine way back in the late 60's regarding a woman president.  Miss Rand said that not only would she not vote for a woman president, but that she could not imagine a properly feminine, healthy woman even wanting to be president.  She expounded on this a bit in The Objectivist and I think there are few other comments of hers that have so rankled modern, liberal minds as these.

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. A “clinging vine” type of woman is not an admirer, but an exploiter of men. 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.

This does not mean that a feminine woman feels or projects hero-worship for any and every individual man; as human beings, many of them may, in fact, be her inferiors. 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. This does not mean that there is a romantic or sexual intention in her attitude toward all men; quite the contrary: the higher her view of masculinity, the more severely demanding her standards. It means that she never loses the awareness of her own sexual identity and theirs. It means that a properly feminine woman does not treat men as if she were their pal, sister, mother—or leader.

The Objectivist, December, 1968.

For anyone who grew up during or after the 1960's, the sexual revolution, and the feminist revolution, on their face these ideas are more than a little controversial.  Although Ayn Rand is clear to say that she "does not mean dependence, obedience or anything implying inferiority" it's difficult to take these comments in any other way.

Let me start by saying insofar as I understand what is meant here, I actually agree in large part with Ayn Rand although I remain unclear and undecided on the specific issue of the presidency.  We'll look at that later.

A Note on Objectivist Terminology
Ayn Rand and Objectivists often use the expression "man qua man" to refer to things that apply to human beings at large both male and female.  For instance, we might say, "Living your life man qua man is the foundation of virtue" and that applies to both men and women as human beings. For the sake of this discussion, if I need to refer to things like that, I'll try to remember to say "human qua human" and use the expression "man qua man" to refer to things that are specific to men as males.

I don't know that I will need that, but I just want to state it up front in case it comes up later.

Requirements and Method
In order for masculinity and feminity to be valid concepts, we need to be able to "reverse engineer" them back to facts of reality.

Last night, I was willing to allow a woman to do something "masculine," such as making the first move, but still maintain her femininity.  After mulling this over with the group, I sense a contradiction in my understanding of the terms here that I hope to clear up during this discussion. 

Whatever we come up with to define these terms, we need something that will allow a fully rational man or woman to be consistently masculine or feminine while also actively, even aggressively, pursuing their values within the context of their lives qua humans.

At the beginning of this discussion, I will be referring to heterosexual unions. This is because homosexual unions are 1) the extreme minority of human sexual relationships and 2) I think they present some special considerations when it comes to masculinity and femininity, which will have to be addressed on their own.

As you'll soon see, I would like to begin with the most basic, fundamental concretes and slowly step to greater and greater abstractions and more complex relationships.  The reason for this approach is because I believe these concepts are, in fact, linked to the concrete reality of human beings as a dioecious species, but our rational faculties introduce additional considerations as our relationships become more complex.

SEX ~or~ Our Favorite Parts
It is a well-known fact among doctors and scientists who study such things that men and women are physically different in some rather dramatic and tittilating ways.

I have heard the basic difference stated thusly, "Boys have a penis and girls have a vagina."

When humans meet in sexual congress, the woman's vagina receives the man's penis.  I'm stating it this way because much hay was made over whether or not this fact of simple logistics implies anything about the concepts of masculinity and femininity in itself.  (I think it does, but in conjunction with other facts about the differences between men and women as we shall shortly discuss.)  We could also state the reverse, though:  when humans meet in sexual congress, the man's penis penetrates a woman's vagina. That this is the fact of the human reproductive act is the concrete foundation for the concepts of masculine and feminine.

I am not saying that rational, masculine men and rational, feminine women only ever have vaginal intercourse.  There are a great number of sexual activities that rational, healthy men and women qua their respective genders may engage in with one another or alone, but that at a basic level vaginal intercourse is the biological pre-requisite for human reproduction via sex.

There are other means of reproduction that do not require that a man and woman actually have sex with one another.  These, however, are man-made processes like in vitro fertilization or cloning, while the process of reproducing by vaginal intercourse is metaphysically given and this is where we begin to understand what "masculine" and "feminine" means.

Next time: Other differences between men and women and what it means for sex.

Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at 05:12 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Category: Importance of Ideas
Post contains 1228 words, total size 8 kb.

Follow the Ayn Rand Center on Twitter

http://twitter.com/AynRandCenter

Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at 07:03 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Category: Importance of Ideas
Post contains 8 words, total size 1 kb.