emizrahi

Man in driver's seat in bedroom

55 posts in this topic

This is a general question about an article I heard about regarding the relationship between a man and a woman in the bedroom. I beleive it suggests that a man should be dominant in the bedroom when it comes to sex. I haven't seen the article and I was interested in getting an electronic copy of it.

Regards,

Edwin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is a general question about an article I heard about regarding the relationship between a man and a woman in the bedroom.  I beleive it suggests that a man should be dominant in the bedroom when it comes to sex.  I haven't seen the article and I was interested in getting an electronic copy of it.

I do not know what you have in mind, but generally speaking, man is the hero and woman is the hero worshipper. Man is the conquerer, and woman is the conquered. But that is a general description, not a sex manual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is a general question about an article I heard about regarding the relationship between a man and a woman in the bedroom. I beleive it suggests that a man should be dominant in the bedroom when it comes to sex. I haven't seen the article and I was interested in getting an electronic copy of it.

No way to comment on the article without a reference to it, of course.

On the general question, I think it comes down to the essences of masculinity and femininity. To quote Ayn Rand:

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...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....

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.... ["An Answer to Readers (About a Woman President)," TO, Dec., 1968, 1.]

(I couldn't find a corresponding item for masculinity as such, even outside the Lexicon. Stephen put it well.)

It's a different context, to be sure, but I think the gist applies here. What matters is the abstract emotion, the orientation regarding the sexual relationship.

Now, it's certainly the case that different sexual practices involve some degree of initiative by one or the other partner, but that's also the case in many areas of any human relationship and has little to do with the general orientation described here.

I suspect that "dominant" is the wrong term for framing the discussion. "Initiative" might be better. In general, men more often take the sexual initiative. I also think that there's no "should" about it, just recognition of the facts.

The essences of masculinity and femininity are different, but a proper romantic relationship is nonetheless between equals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is a general question about an article I heard about regarding the relationship between a man and a woman in the bedroom.  I beleive it suggests that a man should be dominant in the bedroom when it comes to sex.  I haven't seen the article and I was interested in getting an electronic copy of it.

I am not aware of any article, however, here is what Peikoff says in his Q&A tape "Love, Sex, and Romance."

Q: "What is the essence of masculinity?"

A: "This is not part of philosophy; I don't know what it's part of . . . psychology  or sexology or something.  But I know her [AR's] view on this because I've heard her state it many times. The essence of masculinity is strength. The essence of feminity is the worship of strength. Or the essence of masculinity is being a hero and the essence of feminity is hero-worship. She obviously didn't mean muscles, but a strong man a la Howard Roark, John Galt, the Ayn Rand hero. And by worship she did not mean abdication or abnegation or anything like that; it was what Dominique felt for Roark or what Dagny felt for Galt. And the best way to put it would be that scene where she described Dagny as looking at Galt and feeling that her only function was to see him. She was a non-egalitarian in regard to the sexes. She thought that obviously women need to be strong and obviously men have to admire and value. So the difference here is exclusively within the sexual connotation. This was not a put down of women; she always said when she said this that woman have every attribute - morality, character, mathematical skills, engineering, philosophy, you name it - that men do.  And the distinction is entirely in sex because of the distinction in anatomy, which she attached a great importance to since it was there, since it was a fact of reality. And to her, man was the initiator because his function was penetration, and the woman was the one being penetrated, and therefore, she was inherently in a passive position. Already, a soon as you use these words you have to say a thousand times, "Does that mean a feminine woman is passive in sex?" No! She can be as agressive and initiative, and you name it, it's perfectly fine. She attached metaphysical importance to sex. In other words, it was more than important to life.  It was one of the most vital fundamentals making up a life, and, therefore, if in the climactic moment of an experience of that kind, the part one's fuction was to do and the other's was to be done to, that to her made an enormous metaphysical difference in the relationship. One brought the pleasure and the other received in that moment. It is from that point of view only and no other that she made this distinction between masculinity and feminity."

[Note: I transcribed this myself, so any errors are mine.]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do not know what you have in mind, but generally speaking, man is the hero and woman is the hero worshipper. Man is the conquerer, and woman is the conquered. But that is a general description, not a sex manual.

Interesting. I look at it like this:

As a woman, it is my greatest wish for my man to conquer me. In conquering me, he has proved his worthiness. In his desire to conquer me, he has proved to me that he finds me worthy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is a general question about an article I heard about regarding the relationship between a man and a woman in the bedroom.  I beleive it suggests that a man should be dominant in the bedroom when it comes to sex.  I haven't seen the article and I was interested in getting an electronic copy of it.

I'll bet you mean my "Femininity Essays."

I'm on deadline for the April CyberNet right now, but I'll send you a copy and enter the discussion here after the CyberNet is finished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll bet you mean my "Femininity Essays."

I'm on deadline for the April CyberNet right now, but I'll send you a copy and enter the discussion here after the CyberNet is finished.

Thank you all for your comments and input. It is all very interesting and gives me something to think about. Betsy I just received your essays, thank you.

Edwin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The man who is proudly certain of his own value, will want the highest type of woman he can find, the woman he admires, the strongest, the hardest to conquer -- because only the possession of a heroine will give him the sense of an achievement."~ Ayn Rand

What exactly does it mean to "conquer" a woman? I'm not sure exactly what actions would entail conquering a woman in the context of pursuing her romantically/sexually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"The man who is proudly certain of his own value, will want the highest type of woman he can find, the woman he admires, the strongest, the hardest to conquer -- because only the possession of a heroine will give him the sense of an achievement."~ Ayn Rand

What exactly does it mean to "conquer" a woman? I'm not sure exactly what actions would entail conquering a woman in the context of pursuing her romantically/sexually.

It is so much what a man does, but rather what a man is. Or, at least, what a man does is a consequence of what he is. So I do not think there is some prescribed set of actions to perform in conquering a woman, as opposed to a man possessing the strength of character and strength of will such that whatever he does the woman feels she can let go. For the man to conquer, the woman must surrender, and for a woman that means finding a man strong enough that she can relinquish the control that she has exercised in every other area of her life; she has found a man with the strength of character and will to take charge. The man is metaphysically more powerful, and the woman must trust in the character of the man she surrenders to. Whatever his actions, they must reflect the surety of mind, the confidence of being, the overall strength that enables the woman to trustfully say, to herself, "I am yours. Do with me as you like."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is so much what a man does, but rather what a man is. Or, at least, what a man does is a consequence of what he is. So I do not think there is some prescribed set of actions to perform in conquering a woman, as opposed to a man possessing the strength of character and strength of will such that whatever he does the woman feels she can let go. For the man to conquer, the woman must surrender, and for a woman that means finding a man strong enough that she can relinquish the control that she has exercised in every other area of her life; she has found a man with the strength of character and will to take charge. The man is metaphysically more powerful, and the woman must trust in the character of the man she surrenders to. Whatever his actions, they must reflect the surety of mind, the confidence of being, the overall strength that enables the woman to trustfully say, to herself, "I am yours. Do with me as you like."

Listen to him.

HE KNOWS. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"The man who is proudly certain of his own value, will want the highest type of woman he can find, the woman he admires, the strongest, the hardest to conquer -- because only the possession of a heroine will give him the sense of an achievement."~ Ayn Rand

What exactly does it mean to "conquer" a woman? I'm not sure exactly what actions would entail conquering a woman in the context of pursuing her romantically/sexually.

The short and sweet of "conquering a woman" can be : conquer her imagination, conquer her space, conquer her desires, conquer her heart, conquer her mind so that you are a constant presence in whatever she dreams, thinks and does !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand that. I understand the Giver / Receiver roles in sex, but I think it has a very limited application - i.e., sex, and then not all the variants.

As to outside of sex, I don't know why this would apply.

I personally would not want a woman who relinquishes control over her life. This would not be a partnership: I wouldn't have anything to learn from her. How valuable to me would be a strong, inteligent, spirited woman if she chooses to subordinate those attributes when she's with me?

I must say that of anything I've read in the Ayn Rand novels, the man / woman relationships have been the only ones that have remained in some part incomprehensible to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I personally would not want a woman who relinquishes control over her life.

But no one here has advocated that a woman should relinquish control over her life. Why would a man of esteem want a woman like that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Listen to him.

HE KNOWS.  :)

Aw... that's so cute!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sarah, I am very grateful for you putting up that quote from Dr. Peikoff. It is a very important and succinct summation of AR's views on the subject, and really seems to offer every important statement/definition (such as the definition of masculinity which is absent from the AR Lexicon!), and answers the most important and most common objections (differences of gender only arise, and only remain, in the bedroom). Thanks a lot for transcribing it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But no one here has advocated that a woman should relinquish control over her life. Why would a man of esteem want a woman like that?

Stephen - isn't that specifically what you said? I'm confused:

... for a woman that means finding a man strong enough that she can relinquish the control that she has exercised in every other area of her life; she has found a man with the strength of character and will to take charge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But no one here has advocated that a woman should relinquish control over her life. Why would a man of esteem want a woman like that?

Stephen - isn't that specifically what you said? I'm confused:

My words, emphasis added:

"For the man to conquer, the woman must surrender, and for a woman that means finding a man strong enough that she can relinquish the control that she has exercised in every other area of her life; she has found a man with the strength of character and will to take charge."

I am referring to the psychological state of a woman as her fundamental orientation towards her man in regard to sex, not towards her entire life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In response to Edwin's original question about whether the man should be more dominant in the bedroom:

Absolutely! If both partners are pouring every ounce of their physical strength into the act, the man is going to be in control. The man is more dominant by default, just being bigger and stronger. This is the biological basis of masculinity and femininity. Also, women like it :)

--Dan Edge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[...] If both partners are pouring every ounce of their physical strength into the act, the man is going to be in control.  The man is more dominant by default, just being bigger and stronger.  This is the biological basis of masculinity and femininity.[...]

[bold added for emphasis]

What does "This" refer to? Differences in physical strength?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[bold added for emphasis]

What does "This" refer to? Differences in physical strength?

Hello,

Yes, I would say that the difference in physical size and strength betewen women and men is the primary biological foundation for the experience of masculinity and feminity.

--Dan Edge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, I would say that the difference in physical size and strength betewen women and men is the primary biological foundation for the experience of masculinity and feminity.

For anyone:

What I am puzzled about is the relationship of the particulars, the generalizations, and the universals.

Particulars (individuals): Let's say Mr. A is 5 foot 2 inches tall and wiry from cross-country running. Let's say Miss B is 6 foot 2 inches tall and quite muscular from mountain biking or swimming or whatever. Fact: Miss B is bigger and stronger than Mr. A.

Generalization (from many other particulars): Most men are physically stronger (can pick up more weight) than most women.

Universals: Masculinity is a concept that refers to -- what? What is the genus? What is the differentia? In other words, what is the definition of this concept? Further, what are the units -- that is, the referents -- of that concept?

Another thing I don't understand is the reference to "primary." Are there other, secondary, physical/biological "foundations" of the experience of masculinity? Would an example be the capability of penile penetration? If so, why is that secondary rather than primary, if it is?

Returning to the particulars, if physical size and strength differences are the primary biological "foundation" for the experience of masculinity, does this mean that Mr. A cannot feel masculine in the presence of -- indeed, in sexual activity with -- Miss B? If he is short and light (not very strong) relative to most women, can he not experience masculinity? (My own experience says he can.)

In summary, my puzzle is that I "know" the experience of masculinity, particularly heightened in the presence of certain feminine women, but I don't know the cognitive basis for the concept "masculinity." Fortunately, delight in the experience does not required validation of the concept!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In response to Edwin's original question about whether the man should be more dominant in the bedroom:

Absolutely!  If both partners are pouring every ounce of their physical strength into the act, the man is going to be in control.  The man is more dominant by default, just being bigger and stronger.  This is the biological basis of masculinity and femininity.    Also, women like it  :)

I do not think it proper for "bigger and stronger" to turn into a sex manual. I view a man's metaphysical nature as establishing a basic orientation between him and his woman -- man as the hero and woman as the hero-worshipper -- but I see that as a broad-stroke orientation, not as a prescription for what is done in bed. Clearly there are physical aspects to dominance and control, but I think the mental aspect to be much more important, and much more significant. But, again, in either case, dominance and control does not delimit sexual possibilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The essence of masculinity and femininity comes from who chooses (the man) and who is chosen (the woman).

The man is the physical initiator and sustainer of a sexual relationship. If he does not choose her, nothing happens. There is no sexual relationship. The fact that males of all species are generally bigger than females makes it possible for a male to overcome an unwilling female, but there is nothing a woman can do if a man is unwilling and unseduced.

Biology makes man the value-seeker and woman the value sought in a romantic context. Psychological sexual differences follow from that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites