Sexual interests?

[bborg 0]

Sex is a joint physical activity, like dancing, and both participants can't "lead." It so happens that sexually, nature made man the "leader" and women seemed to have evolved to like it that way.

I can understand that, but I don't think this is what "dominance" refers to in the original post. Leading doesn't mean that you are forcing yourself on someone without their consent, does it?

[JRoberts 0]

I do not agree with the implication that homosexuality is "unnatural." A minority inclination, perhaps, but it is still a result of naturalistic forces that an appreciable group of humans on every continent (and animals on all) have a biochemistry that predisposes them to same-sex attraction.

By "unnatural", I mean-it is a path that deviates from the natural "mold" that mankind evolved into. With that said, I agree with your further statement, which is why homosexuality is okay, whereas evasion is not. Evasion is not natural (it goes against using reason, which is what nature gave us to survive, thus leading to our death). Homosexuality is "natural" to those who are born homosexual, as they have a biological predisposition that they cannot change, and thus it would be "unnatural" for a homosexual to try and act in a heterosexual way.

[JRoberts 0]

Homosexual relationships are very different from straight relationships. Not just because I have found my homosexual relationships to be by far better than the straight ones I used to have back in the day; they're actually much different in kind. And I've seen many gay relationships where the couple adopts roles very similar to Ayn Rand's model. I'm curious as to what you mean by "natural" and why you consider one sort of sexuality natural, but not another. I recognize that there are significant difference in the way homosexuals relate to one another that go beyond other sorts of sexual preferences/idiosyncrasies, but how does that difference make it unnatural, whereas having a preference for a particular race or body type is not unnatural?

Read my response to Pkrembs above . Essentially, heterosexuality is purely natural (because that is how nature intended for man as a species to be, ie. the blueprint), whereas homosexuality is incidentally or specifically natural (natural to those who are born homosexual, but not to those who were not born so). This might be another topic, but let me explain further:

In this example, I am differentiating between two types of "causes" (which the depravity of English leaves me with the word nature or natural). The formal cause of man would be those things which are the essential attributes of man as given to us by nature. Thus, the formal cause of man qua man would be: a bipedal mammal, warm-blooded, omnivore, procreation via sexual intercourse and attraction to a mate of the opposite sex, reason as the primary attribute of interaction with the environment, etc. From this standpoint, homosexuality is not "natural" in a universal sense because it does not fit in with the "blueprint" of what a human being is, but it is relatively natural to the individual who was born that way (the reason to make this distinction should be clear: there is that which is the "archetype" of a human, and then that which deviates from the archetype). A distinction, however, must be made. The final cause of man qua man would be: the use of reason to adapt to the environment. Morality lies in this realm of final causation, because it does not necessarily matter what man was "born" with, but rather how he uses his attributes to attain a life of eudaimonia, flourishing, or happiness. For this reason, it is not normal qua formal cause for man to walk on the Moon (if you walked on the moon without any space suit, you would die), but it is normal qua final cause (if you walked on the moon with a spacesuit created by reason), and thus perfectly acceptable. Similarly, it is not normal qua generalized formal cause for man to be homosexual, but what matters as a final cause is how a man uses his sexuality to further his own life of flourishing. The final cause lies within the realm of morality because it does not matter what exactly our form is (ie. what we are born with: blue eyes, brown eyes, black skin, white skin), but rather how we use our primary attribute (reason) in a means conducive to the assertion of a flourishing life.

One might object by trying to equate skin color with sexual orientation. A difference in skin color does not, in any way, go against the essential properties of a human archetype (his mode of locomotion, his mode of communication, his mode of energy consumption, his mode of procreation, his mode of environmental interaction, etc.). Sexual orientation, however, does go against one of these essential properties (the mode of procreation). Yet like I said, this lies outside of the realm of morality.

As you know, I am completely confused by Ayn Rand's theory of sex; anything beyond "it's good" goes totally over my head. I would never in a million years think to describe it the way she did. I'm not saying I think she's wrong necessarily; I just quite frankly don't have a clue what any of it really means. It's just a bunch of floating abstractions in my mind that I can regurgitate when asked to summarize her view.

Begin with your own experiences and inductions . Also, try asking the experts here .

[JRoberts 0]

Could you please further explain what you mean by "Homosexuality, as by their own nature different than the general nature of mankind..." I thought reason and rationality were the core features of man's nature, not sexual orientation.

See my post, above. Reason and rationality are the primary attributes of the nature of man, but they are not the only one. However, morality only applies to the realm of reason as it, itself, applies to man and a flourishing life.

Could you also please describe the difference(s) between homosexual and heterosexual psychology in regard to sex?

This all comes from my personal experience. Homosexuality does not afford a biologically dominant or submissive element to it. Physiologically, a female could not dominate a male. Physiologically, a male could dominate another male, or vice versa. Many times, this sort of trade off does in fact occur, because homosexual "dominance" lies not as much in the realm of penetration as much as it does in the realm of psychological domination, ie. one partner tends to be more psychologically aggressive. I think a problem lies, though, in trying to equate homosexual sex with heterosexual sex-the details are vastly different. Because both men (I'm leaving out female-female sexuality here) can penetrate one another, and because penetration can be mutually pleasurable, I see no reason to assume why a psychologically dominant male, being penetrated by a psychologically submissive male, leads to any sort of problem or dichotomy. It is for this reason that I think homosexual sex to be vastly different than heterosexual sex.

[dondigitalia 0]

Begin with your own experiences and inductions . Also, try asking the experts here .

Easier said than done. Induction is, like, hard and stuff. More comments later. Late for class.

[pkrembs 0]

I do not agree with the implication that homosexuality is "unnatural." A minority inclination, perhaps, but it is still a result of naturalistic forces that an appreciable group of humans on every continent (and animals on all) have a biochemistry that predisposes them to same-sex attraction.

The issue of the existence of biochemistry that predisposes one to homosexuality is far from settled. My personal opinion is that it probably exists, to some extent, in a majority of gay people, but not all. For a very interesting article and related discussion of this topic, I refer you to this thread on THE FORUM. That might be a better place to discuss this issue, as it veers from the original topic of this thread (or you could start a new thread).

I agree. I did not mean to completey discount the "nurture" part of it; from what I've read, it's a combination of both. Anecdotally, I know what many gays and lesbians come from "broken" homes where at least one parent was out of the picture during important stages of childhood development. As for my own case, my parents have been married 30+ years and couldn't be happier, nor I with the pleasure of knowing them as adults. From a very early age, I recall an attraction to the same sex. How much this had to do with my parents, I won't speculate except to say that I had a very safe, loving childhood.

As I understand it, a massive study of identitcal twins is under way to perhaps shed some light on this very issue.

[Paul's Here 0]

You might be interested in looking at the thread "Rape Fantasies in Women".

You'll find that thread here.

It's not that men should be dominant. Men are dominant in sex simply because A is A. Without his desire to initiate and sustain it, there won't be a sexual relationship at all. That's a simple biological fact with major psychological consequences, especially for women.

I'm female and hetero and male dominance is a fact I not only accept but also delight in. Like most women, I have found that surrendering, letting go, and letting a man I love and trust take control is the way to the greatest sexual fulfillment for me.

How would there be a sexual relationship (and what would be its nature) without a woman's desire to initiate and sustain it? Rape? Mindless indifference? What would a man be initiating or sustaining if a woman simply desired to keep her legs closed? That also seems to be a simple biological fact with major psychological consequences, especially for men and women.

Dominance should be simply a synomym for penetration, and I'm glad that there are women who enjoy it. But why is the issue of dominance introduced in addition to penetration. There are ways for men to be penetrated also, and the issue of dominance is not a factor.

The issue of dominance has been discussed several times by Objectivists, and the best that I can understand is that there are women who attach profound importance to dominance, associating it with "letting go". But the assertion that sex is somehow less enjoyable if a woman doesn't like to be dominated seems somewhat artbitrary to me. "Letting go" is purely psychological and is great when both sexes experience it.

[pkrembs 0]

But, back to the topic of sex, dominance, and sexual orientation instead of the causes of sexual orientation itself.

JRoberts raises some interesting points on why the hetersexual/homosexual models of dominance, though fundamentally similar, are quite different in the details and how those are manifested physically.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Sex is a joint physical activity, like dancing, and both participants can't "lead." It so happens that sexually, nature made man the "leader" and women seemed to have evolved to like it that way.

I can understand that, but I don't think this is what "dominance" refers to in the original post. Leading doesn't mean that you are forcing yourself on someone without their consent, does it?

It could mean forcibly taking a woman with her consent.

The nature of a good sexual relationship involves acknowledging and celebrating individual -- and especially sexual -- differences. Most men are bigger and stronger than most women and, although it is an optional way to celebrate sexual differences, many women enjoy being physically dominated.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

It's not that men should be dominant. Men are dominant in sex simply because A is A. Without his desire to initiate and sustain it, there won't be a sexual relationship at all. That's a simple biological fact with major psychological consequences, especially for women.

I'm female and hetero and male dominance is a fact I not only accept but also delight in. Like most women, I have found that surrendering, letting go, and letting a man I love and trust take control is the way to the greatest sexual fulfillment for me.

How would there be a sexual relationship (and what would be its nature) without a woman's desire to initiate and sustain it? Rape?

Yes, a man can rape an unwilling woman, but rarely vice versa.

Mindless indifference?

That is another possibility. Lillian Rearden didn't have much of a desire to initiate and sustain a sexual relationship with anyone, yet she had sexual relationships with Rearden and James Taggart anyway.

What would a man be initiating or sustaining if a woman simply desired to keep her legs closed?

The crime of rape.

Dominance should be simply a synomym for penetration, and I'm glad that there are women who enjoy it. But why is the issue of dominance introduced in addition to penetration. There are ways for men to be penetrated also, and the issue of dominance is not a factor.

Dominance is an issue because, as I said in reply to bborg, it is one of optional, but quite common, ways that couples choose to emphasize and celebrate their individual sexual differences.

[bborg 0]

It could mean forcibly taking a woman with her consent.

The nature of a good sexual relationship involves acknowledging and celebrating individual -- and especially sexual -- differences. Most men are bigger and stronger than most women and, although it is an optional way to celebrate sexual differences, many women enjoy being physically dominated.

Ok. I guess what continues to confuse me, then, is so-called “rape fantasies”. Presumably, a woman with such a fantasy would be implicitly consenting to such an encounter if it happened. They want a Roark, basically. The problem is that the scene with Roark and Dominique was possible only within the context of fiction. Roark knew, even as Dominique fought against him, that she wanted it. He knew it because we knew it. In reality, a man who forces himself on a woman while she fights him is called a rapist, and rightly so. This kind of fantasy is just not possible in the real world; it would require mind-reading for a moral man to take that kind of action.

[jasonlockwood 0]

On the topic of gay sex roles, I have found two interesting stereotypes over the years that I have wondered about:

1) Height differences between two male partners.

As a shorter man, I have had a couple relationships with taller men. One was some years older than I am and one some years younger. Many many people commented that I must be the "submissive" type because I was dating men a half foot or more taller than I am. This puzzled me because I am definitely not submissive in any sense. I just happened to have been attracted to these particular men who were taller than I was.

2) Age differences in two male partners.

In gay circles, there is this phenomenon whereby an older man enters into relationships ONLY with men much much younger. In some cases, I've seen men in their 50s or even 60s dating 21-year-olds. Now I have no personal objection to this arrangement if it's consensual. What I find puzzling is WHY older men do this. I suppose the idea of being a mentor or "daddy" (the common word for it) appeals to them, but my knowledge of good relationships is both parties need to have common values to bring to the table. A much older man is far more developed in that sense. Wouldn't he get bored with a young guy barely into adulthood?

These are just a couple notions I've wondered about. Perhaps some of our other gay members (or anyone really) can offer some explanations that I'm not seeing.

[pkrembs 0]

On the topic of gay sex roles, I have found two interesting stereotypes over the years that I have wondered about:

2) Age differences in two male partners.

In gay circles, there is this phenomenon whereby an older man enters into relationships ONLY with men much much younger. In some cases, I've seen men in their 50s or even 60s dating 21-year-olds. Now I have no personal objection to this arrangement if it's consensual. What I find puzzling is WHY older men do this. I suppose the idea of being a mentor or "daddy" (the common word for it) appeals to them, but my knowledge of good relationships is both parties need to have common values to bring to the table. A much older man is far more developed in that sense. Wouldn't he get bored with a young guy barely into adulthood?

My own view is that this is analogous to the "trophy wife" mentality of middle-aged straight men. I don't deny that lover 20+ years apart can have things in common, but I doubt Although, I think there is another element at work here which reaks of the type of pederasty practiced in Classical Greece or perhaps even early Gnostics, whereby the knowledge and experiences, particularly of living as a gay man are transferred to an insecure, less experienced man as a result of living in a society which, for the most part, disapproves of homosexuality.

[Lost Horizon 0]

It could mean forcibly taking a woman with her consent.

The nature of a good sexual relationship involves acknowledging and celebrating individual -- and especially sexual -- differences. Most men are bigger and stronger than most women and, although it is an optional way to celebrate sexual differences, many women enjoy being physically dominated.

Ok. I guess what continues to confuse me, then, is so-called “rape fantasies”. Presumably, a woman with such a fantasy would be implicitly consenting to such an encounter if it happened. They want a Roark, basically. The problem is that the scene with Roark and Dominique was possible only within the context of fiction. Roark knew, even as Dominique fought against him, that she wanted it. He knew it because we knew it. In reality, a man who forces himself on a woman while she fights him is called a rapist, and rightly so. This kind of fantasy is just not possible in the real world; it would require mind-reading for a moral man to take that kind of action.

If that scene with Roark and Dominique was possible only within the context of fiction, then I am curious what determines which scenes from The Fountainhead are only possible within the context of fiction. I assume if I am reading a science fiction or fantasy based book that the scenes are obviously only possible within the context of fiction. However, it seems like Rand would not have wrote something that she did not think was possible and even likely to occur in the real world. My only concern with the scene involving Roark and Dominique is that the first time I read The Fountainhead, it did not seem realistic in the sense that they really didn't know each other within the context of the story at that point and he was basically a worker in her house. There was no previous intimate behavior between them, and they did not know each other very well. So in that sense, I had a hard time grasping that something like that could actually occur.

They have a word for something like that in the real world today, and it is in fact called rape, and the laws in place define what occurred in that scene as rape. I think that scene would accurately portray what Rand was trying to show in terms of the dynamics between a man and a woman sexually with a man being an aggressor and using "force" if the characters in the book knew each other and had had sex before and then something like that happened. I don't understand how Roark could just "know" that Dominque wanted it, and took it upon himself to do what he did.

[Mercury 0]

If that scene with Roark and Dominique was possible only within the context of fiction, then I am curious what determines which scenes from The Fountainhead are only possible within the context of fiction. I assume if I am reading a science fiction or fantasy based book that the scenes are obviously only possible within the context of fiction. However, it seems like Rand would not have wrote something that she did not think was possible and even likely to occur in the real world. My only concern with the scene involving Roark and Dominique is that the first time I read The Fountainhead, it did not seem realistic in the sense that they really didn't know each other within the context of the story at that point and he was basically a worker in her house. There was no previous intimate behavior between them, and they did not know each other very well. So in that sense, I had a hard time grasping that something like that could actually occur.

They have a word for something like that in the real world today, and it is in fact called rape, and the laws in place define what occurred in that scene as rape. I think that scene would accurately portray what Rand was trying to show in terms of the dynamics between a man and a woman sexually with a man being an aggressor and using "force" if the characters in the book knew each other and had had sex before and then something like that happened. I don't understand how Roark could just "know" that Dominque wanted it, and took it upon himself to do what he did.

[Emphases added.]

If I recall correctly, she had struck him across the face with a strap for not coming to fix the fireplace himself. (Or was that only in the movie?)

[Betsy Speicher 0]

The problem is that the scene with Roark and Dominique was possible only within the context of fiction. Roark knew, even as Dominique fought against him, that she wanted it. He knew it because we knew it. In reality, a man who forces himself on a woman while she fights him is called a rapist, and rightly so. This kind of fantasy is just not possible in the real world; it would require mind-reading for a moral man to take that kind of action.

Even in the real world Roark would not have needed mind-reading since Dominique's behavior communicated desire and consent in a dozen ways. See my analysis of the beginning of Roark and Dominique's relationship here.

[jasonlockwood 0]

I agree. I did not mean to completey discount the "nurture" part of it; from what I've read, it's a combination of both. Anecdotally, I know what many gays and lesbians come from "broken" homes where at least one parent was out of the picture during important stages of childhood development. As for my own case, my parents have been married 30+ years and couldn't be happier, nor I with the pleasure of knowing them as adults. From a very early age, I recall an attraction to the same sex. How much this had to do with my parents, I won't speculate except to say that I had a very safe, loving childhood.

This is exactly my experience, except that my parents have been very happily married for almost 53 years now. An interesting twist is my oldest sister is a lesbian and though we were both raised by the same parents, she ended up quite the typical "angry feminist lesbian." To this day she cannot grasp why I don't support all these leftist causes and candidates on the theory that I am a "tratitor." She actually gets angry that I'm so calm and reasonable. Gays should be ACTIVISTS according to her.

Digression aside, all my best relationships have been with men who had similarly good childhoods. Good relationships can be difficult to come by, regardless of sexual orientation. The lack of rationality just means gays have to try harder due to the sheer reduced number of potential partners out there. A sad commentary on contemporary culture, but nevertheless I have done well so far, so I remain optimistic about my chances in my new life in Sydney.

[Dave K 0]

Rand herself said, "if it was rape, it was rape by engraved invitation." I'm sorry I don't have the source of that quote but I have heard it several times over the years regarding that scene. I am satisfied that it wasn't rape but thoroughly consensual. Since that is what the author said I think one should take her at her word.

[egochick 0]

I always figured Dominique invited him to have her and was surprised when she resisted. She slapped him, played all kinds of hard-to-get, and invited him into her home and not anyone else to repair the fireplace.

On another note, I'm afraid the only evidence I have about my preference is anecdotal. I've always been attracted to the opposite sex. Before puberty, it was Prince Charming in all those Disney movies - even when I understood nothing of sex. Then it was a hero in a novel, movie, etc. Now, it's my boyfriend of over a year.

Perhaps it's just a personality thing. I love my alpha male. Before dating him, I had a problem with being too -something-. (I don't know what to call it.) I never realized this myself until after a first date. He was driving me back on campus after dinner when the poor guy said something to the effect of myself having done too much "big stuff" for him to feel like a man. I never intended any comparison, but we'd exchange interests, stories of childhood, etc. I didn't (and don't) think of anything I've done as particularly great or big, it just is. Needless to say, I found his comments puzzling.

Upon introspection, I learned that I do things that other girls don't do. As a 4-year-old, I led the neighbor boys onto the 2.5 story roof from out a window. You can imagine our mothers' response to finding their children up that high. I really haven't changed much since then. Maybe as an individual, I require a guy that is equally odd to not feel overly burdened by me. Because of this, I figure that other people have different needs in a relationship than me.

It's not that the comparison between oneself and partner (or potential partner) is deliberate, but it's always there implicitly.

[Scott A. 0]

This all comes from my personal experience. Homosexuality does not afford a biologically dominant or submissive element to it. Physiologically, a female could not dominate a male. Physiologically, a male could dominate another male, or vice versa. Many times, this sort of trade off does in fact occur, because homosexual "dominance" lies not as much in the realm of penetration as much as it does in the realm of psychological domination, ie. one partner tends to be more psychologically aggressive. I think a problem lies, though, in trying to equate homosexual sex with heterosexual sex-the details are vastly different. Because both men (I'm leaving out female-female sexuality here) can penetrate one another, and because penetration can be mutually pleasurable, I see no reason to assume why a psychologically dominant male, being penetrated by a psychologically submissive male, leads to any sort of problem or dichotomy. It is for this reason that I think homosexual sex to be vastly different than heterosexual sex.

I think I understand what you're saying, but let me put it in my own words to make sure. Basically, you're saying that because both men in a homosexual relationship can penetrate the other (and gain pleasure either way), the issue of "dominance" becomes psychological rather than physical. This differs from heterosexual sex because men are, biologically, always the penetrators in this case (i.e., dominance is primarily physical).

I can see this, but I do wonder how often that kind of "role-switching" actually occurs among gay men. Without any real evidence to back this up, my hunch would be that the men who submit do so the majority of the time, and the men who penetrate do so the majority of the time. That is, I think they would probably fall into roles that align with their preferences for pleasure. In this sense, I could see the psychology becoming very similar to heterosexuals. But maybe someone can support or refute my speculation on this?

In general, I agree that there are some psychological differences regarding sex between heterosexual and homosexual couples. What I'm unsure about is the extent to which it differs, or for how long.

[Carlos 0]

On another note, I'm afraid the only evidence I have about my preference is anecdotal. I've always been attracted to the opposite sex. Before puberty, it was Prince Charming in all those Disney movies - even when I understood nothing of sex.

I too had this experience (but the other way around of course). I remember playing Legend of Zelda at the age of 6 or 7 and imagining I was some courageous adventurer who rescued beautiful damsels in distress. I knew nothing of sex, and I'm not even sure you could fully say I found girls to be attractive, but all I knew was that I was in love with the idea of heroically rescuing some sweet, innocent maiden. So as far back as I can remember I had a strong desire to be the hero for a woman.

[dondigitalia 0]

I can see this, but I do wonder how often that kind of "role-switching" actually occurs among gay men. Without any real evidence to back this up, my hunch would be that the men who submit do so the majority of the time, and the men who penetrate do so the majority of the time. That is, I think they would probably fall into roles that align with their preferences for pleasure. In this sense, I could see the psychology becoming very similar to heterosexuals. But maybe someone can support or refute my speculation on this?

In my experience, you are right with respect to the sexual relationship of the men involved. We actually use the labels "top," "bottom" or "versatile" to describe a man's preferred role, although that role can change depending on a whole bunch of factors that can come into play in any given relationship. In this respect, homosexual relationships are much, much more complicated than heterosexual relationships.

Oftentimes, psychologically, the men fall into roles that are aligned with their sexual roles, but this isn't always the case. Some men prefer that kind of relationship, whereas others prefer a relationship that is more dynamic, where neither partner is the one who is "in charge." Still others prefer a relationship where one is "in charge" sometimes and the other is "in charge" other times. In this respect also, homosexual relationships are a lot more complicated.

My own preference (psychologically; I'll keep the other side of my preferences private ) is more of an even playing field, with occasional lapses of one or the other partner taking charge. I wouldn't want to be with a man who is submissive all the time (I don't think I could fully respect him), but at the same time, I'm too aggressive and strong a personality to be submissive all the time, but I do find pleasure in adopting either role from time to time.

[Carlos 0]

Reading this thread makes me have to ask: are there more gay men than lesbian women? It seems like the percentage is higher for males than females.

[dondigitalia 0]

I agree. I did not mean to completey discount the "nurture" part of it; from what I've read, it's a combination of both. Anecdotally, I know what many gays and lesbians come from "broken" homes where at least one parent was out of the picture during important stages of childhood development. As for my own case, my parents have been married 30+ years and couldn't be happier, nor I with the pleasure of knowing them as adults. From a very early age, I recall an attraction to the same sex. How much this had to do with my parents, I won't speculate except to say that I had a very safe, loving childhood.

As I understand it, a massive study of identitcal twins is under way to perhaps shed some light on this very issue.

I actually know three sets of identical twins where one is straight and one is gay. That isn't enough to be considered a study of any sort, but it illustrates that the matter is not wholly genetic. I think it's a mistake even to say sexuality is determined by a combination of nature and nurture. My view is rather unpopular among gays, but I am of the very strong opinion that there is an element of choice to it as well.

In general, I think almost everything in human psychology is a combination of all three, at least going from what I can gather from introspection. I think I've talked to you (and to Jason) about this before; it's the reason I consider the standard experimental model to be inappropriate for psychology (free will is a variable that cannot, in principle, be held constant). That's a different topic altogether, though...

[dondigitalia 0]

By "unnatural", I mean-it is a path that deviates from the natural "mold" that mankind evolved into. With that said, I agree with your further statement, which is why homosexuality is okay, whereas evasion is not. Evasion is not natural (it goes against using reason, which is what nature gave us to survive, thus leading to our death). Homosexuality is "natural" to those who are born homosexual, as they have a biological predisposition that they cannot change, and thus it would be "unnatural" for a homosexual to try and act in a heterosexual way.

I think "abnormal" would be a better word to describe it, although I hesitate to call a practice engaged in by 10% of the population abnormal, as there are many practices engaged in by far fewer people that are considered perfectly normal.