The 'Psycho-Metaphysics' of Sex

[John Dailey]

~ (With apologies to Barbara Branden :whistle: )

~ The subject has had several different names in philosophy, and, been considered by some as irrelevent to it. The same goes for the more generic 'Philosophical Psychology' which I consider my subject's concern to fall under.

~ I wish there was a 'Psychology' sub-forum to match 'Science and Mathematics', but since there is none per se, this sub-forum seems the most appropriate, if not the obviously fitting, place.

2Bcont

LLAP

J:D

[John Dailey]

~ I usually defend most criticisms re O'isms tenets and some of Rand's separable commentings, but I've had a prob re the association of males as 'penetrator' and females as 'penetrateds' as an explanation for 'the nature of' (in the sense of 'best', of course [ie: beyond rutting studs with ho's]) human-sexual relatings.

~ It is noteworthy that Peikoff sees the subject as not properly part of Philosophy per se, (I'm a bit tempted to agree, but, there IS a 'metaphysics' [aka 'sense-of-life'] methinks relevent here re Psychology (as 'epistemology' is). However, such is not my main concern here.

~ Barbara may remember my discussing this on the old ATL.

~ Anyhoo, any thoughts/commentings on the proper view of: 'the nature of sexual/gender psychology'?

LLAP

J:D

Edited August 20, 2007 by John Dailey

[John Dailey]

ADDENDUM:

~ The reason I bring this subject up is that (hope 'plugging' another forum's ok, Mike) I just finished reading a thread at 4aynrandfans here and discovered that the late Stephen Speicher had similar qualms for the exact same reasons I've had (prob about 'passive' re females, and no one seeing 'enveloping' as an alternative pro-active dynamic) about Rand's views on the 'nature of sex'...roles.

~ I suggest reading the thread before commenting here, (unfortunate that the last post was a year ago) but...as you wish. --- As an aside, reading such can show how relatable, but irrelevent, tangents can confuse the original concern.

LLAP

J:D

PS: I'd comment there, but have a prob 'registering.' (My comp prob; not Betsy's)

Edited August 20, 2007 by John Dailey

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

John,

There is a psychology thread. If you are reading this, you are in it.

I moved your thread here.

Michael

[John Dailey]

Mike:

~ Sheesh...thanx. How I missed this, I dunno (glances at that can of Coke :ermm: ) I checked 3 times, though I had posted here before.

~ Anyhoo, this does seem more apropos.

~ Now, if anyone's interested... :question:

LLAP

J:D

[RTB]

Should I dare put my toe into this water?

Let's do what I often advocate doing. Back up. Let's think about things from the top down then to reality. It seems sometimes people want to work in reverse and start with the material (in this case, sex) when it's not warranted and then step upward into philosophy.

Oh.....I had a bunch of things to say but have lost the nerve. I think I was going to type what everyone else was thinking but damnit to hell my better judgement! :-P

[Wolf DeVoon]

Aw, jeez. The difference between men and women? I quote APG in relevant part:

7KH8QLYHUVHDVZHNQRZLW

ZDVFUHDWHGLQ%&E\*RGZKRZDVERUHGZLWKKDQJLQJ

DURXQGIRUDOORI(WHUQLW\ZLWKQRWKLQJLQSDUWLFXODUWRGRRUWKLQN

DERXWVLQFHKHDOUHDG\.QHZHYHU\WKLQJDQ\ZD\:KDWZHFDOO

7KH%LJ%DQJ

ZDVLQIDFW*RGSOD\LQJZLWKPDWFKHVDQGZKHQ

*RG

VPRWKHUJHWVKRPHIURPZRUNLQ$'KH

VJRLQJWR

EHLQ%LJ7URXEOH

[Rich Engle]

Wolf gives us a cryptic, elegant solution...

"7KH8QLYHUVHDVZHNQRZLW

ZDVFUHDWHGLQ%&E\*RGZKRZDVERUHGZLWKKDQJLQJ

DURXQGIRUDOORI(WHUQLW\ZLWKQRWKLQJLQSDUWLFXODUWRGRRUWKLQN

DERXWVLQFHKHDOUHDG\.QHZHYHU\WKLQJDQ\ZD\:KDWZHFDOO

7KH%LJ%DQJ

ZDVLQIDFW*RGSOD\LQJZLWKPDWFKHVDQGZKHQ

*RG

VPRWKHUJHWVKRPHIURPZRUNLQ$'KH

VJRLQJWR

EHLQ%LJ7URXEOH"

Wha wha WHA? I am HEALED!! At last!!

Psycho-sexual metaphysics...hrumph. As long as I don't think about that whilst in process, the performance seems to go about nicely and unencumbered. Heck, I don't even get to thinking about that when I'm sitting there in my underwear, gold neck-bling, black socks, and wristwatch, smoking the post-coital smoke (as is the way of all Real Men<tm>, or at least successful porno stars).

Ah...if only I lived in a place where there was a flickery neon sign to grace things.

It's usually the next day where thoughts psycho-philo-meta may occupy me for a moment, but by then all I'm really about is figuring out how to do it again, and how soon.

I think I'm going to write a procedural sex manual for Objectivists. Do you guys think ten pages is enough to sell an ebook for 19.95 US? I'll put drawings in, and everything!

rde

"You gotta keep 'em separated." --The Outcast(?)

Edited January 5, 2008 by Rich Engle

[RTB]

I have a velvet elvis art above my bed......and one of those liquor signs that says 'sexy mommas served here' too. Does that count for something?

ps I can't see your code. :-(

[Rich Engle]

RTB ups the ante:

"I have a velvet elvis art above my bed......and one of those liquor signs that says 'sexy mommas served here' too. Does that count for something?"

In my book it does.

I have a few things in the Zen Love Nest. Klimt's "The Kiss." Mardi Gras masks, bunny ears...a few leather pieces, a fountain, a respectable toy drawer. Red lights. Above my bed is a big, faux goldleaf mirror, which is good for fun, depending upon the navigation involved in the engagement at hand.

rde

Why not push the envelope and make the respectable blush?

Edited January 5, 2008 by Rich Engle

[RTB]

RTB ups the ante:

"I have a velvet elvis art above my bed......and one of those liquor signs that says 'sexy mommas served here' too. Does that count for something?"

In my book it does.

I have a few things in the Zen Love Nest. Klimpt's "The Kiss." Mardi Gras masks, bunny ears...a few leather pieces, a fountain, a respectable toy drawer. Red lights. Above my bed is a big, faux goldleaf mirror, which is good for fun, depending upon the navigation involved in the engagement at hand.

rde

Why not push the envelope and make the respectable blush?

Not yet, sir!

As soon as I turn off the light switch the surround sound stereo goes, "bow chikka bow wow......bom chikka bow wow"

Beat that!

[Rich Engle]

RTB enjoys the pleasures only modern science and a wah-wah pedal can provide:

"As soon as I turn off the light switch the surround sound stereo goes, 'bow chikka bow wow......bom chikka bow wow'"

I stand in humble awe. I have never had the fortitude to play Barry White albums, or even the soundtrack from "Shaft," but perhaps someday...

The truth is, the Brothers are the true masters of building love shacks...we can only pretend to the throne of the fully-pimped.

I'm down to the feather boa, and the conscpicuously mounted bamboo switch (just for shock effect, well, usually...).

Edited January 5, 2008 by Rich Engle

[Kat]

Hey Rich, now that you are back in action how about writing a little something for the Zen Love Nest.

Kat

[Rich Engle]

Already on it, Kat. It's already getting too hot over here with that...

Edited January 5, 2008 by Rich Engle

[John Dailey]

~ Well, this has already gotten too 'deep' for me (dare I say, pardon the purposeful pun?)

~ Didn't think of a neon sign over my bed; maybe that'll clarify things in a better (Purple? Orange? [Red is so, so, n-o-t] Heliotrope?)...light.

~ Glad others chimed in...even if most was in Martian. Obviously there's a real intellectual interest in this abstruse behav...umm...subject.

LLAP

J:D

[Rich Engle]

A worthwhile exchange, even though it had me ending up on a tangent; in this case realizing I had a can of glow in the dark paint sitting around unused. I'm downloading stencil patterns and getting to work on the walls...

rde

Mission Creep: sometimes it can be your little friend.

[RTB]

A worthwhile exchange, even though it had me ending up on a tangent; in this case realizing I had a can of glow in the dark paint sitting around unused. I'm downloading stencil patterns and getting to work on the walls...

rde

Mission Creep: sometimes it can be your little friend.

Glow paint? I concede defeat.

[Rich Engle]

Defeat? I was just about to offer a draw... B)

But, to be fair and clear: the glow paint is not body paint. I'll probably do something really dorky like cut out various provocative silhouettes, then hit the walls with it.

If I misrepresented that, my apologies. I would indeed use glow body paint if I had any, but it's not currently in the '08 budget... See? Another good idea sprung. Yikes...

rde

There's Always Next Time.

[John Dailey]

~ Why is this latest exchange making me think of a certain scene re fluorescent condoms in a duel in a dark room (a la SW 'light-sabres') from SKIN DEEP ('89-Blake Edwards-John Ritter)?

LLAP

J:D

Edited January 7, 2008 by John Dailey

[Mike11]

This is an aspect of Objectivism I believe to be Rand interpreting her own psychology as philosophical truth. This post is going to contain graphic depictions of "deviant" sexuality. MSK can delete it, but its the only way I can think of to prove a point. Seriously, if MSK deems this post as too risque he can feel free to do so without hard feelings of any kind.

This post is long, wondering and typed to late and edited 4 times. In fairness to you here is my outline -

1. Rand clearly had a personal thing for Bondage which spilled into her philosophy.

2. The law of averages, men of average being stronger than women, does not apply to individual sexuality anymore than to individual wage.

3. Even if it did, women still have a fair shot as being in the dominant role.

4. You can not define the ideal "Man" or "Woman" that others must measure up to without straw manning.

5. LGBT relationships need not have the same binary power relationship.

6. Not all sexual acts need be based on biological gender, in some extreme cases the gender can be switched with no primary effect.

7. Sex is a wide open concept, no more definable in practice than something like reading or playing.

Human sexual relationships are determined by the individuals themselves though and not by some Collective (heh) like gender. Rand in stating her view simply read her own sexuality as a universal human truth. Here is where I think her own sexuality lay -

Rand was heavily interested in bondage-like (I mean bondage flat out actually, the bondage-like was a pre-emptive dodge) ideas and imagery, always with the man in the Dominant role. There is the notorious Fountainhead sequence which, while clearly not Rape, contained all the material of softcore D/s fiction and has been an inspiration to many in the community. That continued in Atlas when Dagny says something like "The chain gave her the most feminine of aspects - that of a woman Bound". She also, as we all know, made a series of statements about how she likes to worship male heroes and would not like to run for President as a woman.

Here are some reasons why she can not say this universally -

1. Many Objectivists and misogynists make the argument that men, on average, are stronger than women and are therefore the naturally dominant players. Assuming across the board Every male stronger than a female, sex is not the same as beating someone up. Different act, different important anatomy. If the "stronger" is the one having the most desirable characteristics in a certain situation than Cate Blanchett, not David Lettermen is the one calling the shots in bed. This is furthered if you look at sex as something that seeks psychological value aswell, the one who initiates sex could be the male or female, the one most incontrol psychologically could be either or. However one sex is not superior across the board, it is only as an average. A woman can be stronger than the person they have sex with. Saying that the man, because of the averages, is stronger and therefore more dominant, is counter to Objectivist ethics. I don't expect to be paid ludicrous amounts of money, control the media, secretly manipulate the American government and rule the World just because I'm Jewish - I am treated in accordance with my own, individual, merit.

2. An increasing number of women are pursuing and succeeding at the tops of corporate ladders and a woman is running for President, the idea of female "Hero Worship" as an inevitable part of being female is dead. An increasing number of men are also staying at home, earning less than women etc. If we define women and men based on actual living women and men Heroism and Hero Worship (in sex or everyday life) are not based on biology, any attempt to link the 2 is bad straw manning. The arguments would look like this:

1. Ayn Rand was a sub.

2. Ayn Rand was a woman.

3. This dominatrix is also a woman.

4. Therefore all women, according to their essential characteristics, are subs... err, "Women Qua Women"

Or,

1. Women Qua Women kneel to worship John Galt's Divine ...

2. Hillary does not.

3. Therefore Hillary is not a woman.

Or,

1. Women Qua Women must kneel to to worship John Galt's Divine ...

2. Hillary does not.

3. Therefore Hillary must be punished for not being a women.

3. Not all sexual activity is even hetero, physical activity. Human sexuality runs a wide spectrum. First there are gays, lesbians, transexuals, hermaphrodites, furs and others who do operate within the same dichotomy as heteros, how can these "Metaphysical" claims be made about them? These are fringe issues but relevant ones, as time goes on and the male/female divide gets more dated and mutated these cases will become more the center.

I can see a few counters to this:

1. "In a gay or lesbian relationship one often plays the "male" the other plays the "female" proving the dichotomy must continue to exist". There is no necessary reason for this and it is not found in all same sex couples. All this proves is a residual hetero fad. This also does not help when dealing with transexual or hermaphroditic relationships. What is is called when one plays the dominant role, has female secondary traits, male primary ones, yet self identifies as a female?

Okay, looks like I only saw one.

Also there are fetishes which do not even involve bodily interaction the same way. Some people are wired to require pain, mind games, ropes, even balloons. As the act, and more importantly, psychological involvement becomes less and less contingent on the players specific biology how can a universal biologically determined power relationship be applicable, desirable, or even arrived at?

I can imagine a counter that goes something like "These fetishes are not natural and diviate from behavior appropriate for Qua Qua Qua" but such an objection fails for the syllogisms offered earlier about things being Qua anything in this context.

As an example take the most shocking and disturbing - Pain and Humiliation, BDS&M. One could say that Sex Qua Sex is about excersizing our highest virtues, values and emotions, something antithetical to this fetish.

1. It need not be against our values, consider the virtue trust is amplified here far more than in "Sex Qua Sex" and can therefore be seen as superior. Also, we watch disturbing stories about the Holocaust, relive past pain and other dark, "negative" things for understanding of ourselves and others, how is this fundementally different?

An S&M person could say

1 Sex is about trust and self knowledge.

2. There is no trust or knowledge gained in the Missionary Poistion.

3. Therefore the Missionary Position is not Sex Qua Sex.

2. Why does sexuality, or all sexual acts have to be about "The highest romantic good"? It is a human act like any other and can be done for a multitude of reasons and motives. I like using my eyes most to see the sunset but I sure as heck am not going to close them other times in protest to other uses, like reading a cereal box, as being "Lower". Why read fiction that is not romantic idealism? Does it make any sense to see all reading as the same?

I need to stop posting here when its 3 am.

Also, its ironic Speicher was mentioned, he banned me for bringing up "envelopment" as an alternative to "penetration", something about my being a Dirty Subjectivist.

Edited January 10, 2008 by Mike11

[Wolf DeVoon]

Why does sexuality, or all sexual acts have to be about "The highest romantic good"? It is a human act like any other and can be done for a multitude of reasons and motives. I like using my eyes most to see the sunset but I sure as heck am not going to close them other times in protest to other uses, like reading a cereal box, as being "Lower". Why read fiction that is not romantic idealism? Does it make any sense to see all reading as the same?

Mike, briefly what's at issue is child vs adolescent vs adult vs parent. They read differently, have different cognitive and normative priorities. Not everyone gets to succeed in life, nor at the same pace, in the same historical context, etc. You have to read Rand as an exceptional individual.

Regards,

W.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Mike11,

I saw nothing wrong at all in your post. You are honestly trying to analyze what you observe. You are using your mind to the best of your ability (even at 3 AM), irrespective of where it leads.

I can't think of anything better to offer other posters.

For my two cents, I don't like bruises and blood with my sex. Never have.

Nathaniel Branden once mentioned (I think it was in MYWAR) that he asked Rand why, in her fiction, the woman always had different lovers (on the main character level) and not the man. She responded that this was her fantasy, not his.

Michael

[John Dailey]

Mike11:

~ Who-ahh! I was originally hoping for a substantive set of posts, but yours covers w-a-y more than I expected, (though it gets more into Rand's specific views, rather than the ideas I questioned); quite thought-provoking though. Thanx.

~ Your last comment is very interesting--and perplexing --given all that Speicher argued and questioned on the other Forum's thread which I linked to.

LLAP

J:D

[Mike11]

Mike11:

~ Who-ahh! I was originally hoping for a substantive set of posts, but yours covers w-a-y more than I expected, (though it gets more into Rand's specific views, rather than the ideas I questioned); quite thought-provoking though. Thanx.

~ Your last comment is very interesting--and perplexing --given all that Speicher argued and questioned on the other Forum's thread which I linked to.

LLAP

J:D

If you thought it was thought provoking, excellant. As for Speicher, its been a year and a half and the arguement we had did center on male/female supremacy, as you can tell I don't hold the view of male dominance and that was our dispute. I thought it was on the anatomical details, I may have been wrong. Eventually howevr, due to this view, I got the boot.

Edited January 12, 2008 by Mike11

[Rich Engle]

Whoah... I have to confess that, while I thought I kept things somewhat on the cutting edge, Mike kind of makes me jealous. His frankness is admirable.

Then, to this:

"Also, its ironic Speicher was mentioned, he banned me for bringing up "envelopment" as an alternative to "penetration", something about my being a Dirty Subjectivist."

Heh. Forgive my cruelty and directness, but if that's actually the gist of it from Spreicher (have not read), all I'm hearing is someone that really, really needs to score. Jeez. I'm just trying to keep things tidy, fresh, and innovative in the bouidoir and this guy's worried about...ugh.

I have some maybe relevant comments to Mike's post, but I'm going to let them cure a bit more. That's code for saying I'm tired and going to take a nap first.

rde