Found this really cool book on Amazon: Masculine Power, Feminine Beauty: The Volitional, Objective Basis for Heterosexuality in Romantic Love and Marriage
I’ve read the entire Amazon preview and will probably buy it. The author rejects the “attraction/sexual orientation is not a choice” notion attempts to give a rational justification for heterosexuality and male-female sexual relationships. It’s based quite heavily off of Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism (Rand once said that the essence of masculinity was his conquering of nature and moving it to his will, whereas the essence of femininity is hero worship, i.e., admiration of a man). Certain parts of the hypothesis are as follows (sentences that are are paraphrased are not in quotation marks, while direct quotations are)
The essence of masculinity is a desire for power over nature, while the essence of femininity is a desire to absorb and feed off his power.
Men’s bodies, hardy and muscular, are built for conquering and moving nature; while women’s bodies, soft and supple, are built for child-rearing.
All of society is built to ease women’s pains and sufferings, in order for her to concentrate on her task of procreation. All of society’s amenities, are built by men; men do all the dangerous work so that women don’t have a man’s pains on top of the ones she already has.
It is not a coincidence that the man’s response to sexual arousal is his sex organ, by becoming erect, becoming more powerful; and the woman’s response to sexual arousal is her sex organ, by becoming soft and wet, becomes susceptible to submission.
Since trades must be a value for value, the exchange in a heterosexual relationship is (or ought to be) balanced: a man gives his power to a woman who would otherwise have a hard time doing the manly tasks by herself, since the man is best suited for this; and the woman gives her body and her beauty, which, at least ideally, ought to be such that her body and beauty match his achievements over nature.
“The man is hard, strong, unbending, decisive, the leader, the champion, the protector, the physically dominant one, the indomitable. The woman is soft, supple, eager, challenging, judgmental….The man asserts his power; the woman clutches it and feeds on it. The man dominates and conquers; the woman judges and surrenders. The man’s actions say: “This is how I face nature alone, and command it, for myself and for you. For my success, you are my highest reward.” The woman’s actions say, “Yes. I approve! I commend myself to you, my champion.”
“I can explain my sexual orientation. Can you explain yours?”
“Such a solitary triumph [of a man and woman separately, as individuals] is not possible if there are two men involved in a sexual act. And, of course, the aroused anatomical parts of two men do not fit together. (This physical fact is one of the ‘elephants in the room’, which I will discuss later, that seem to be taboo in contemporary academic writings in support of homosexuality.) But there is something much worse about sexual intercourse between two men. A man needs to know that he is indomitable. The notion of dominating another man, or being dominated by someone – as the highest form of pleasure and spiritual fulfillment – is a betrayal of every ounce of a man’s being. The matter is not primarily one of physical attraction or repulsion, but of man’s need for self-esteem.”
". . . elle, suivant l’usage des femmes et des chats qui ne viennent pas quand on les appelle et qui viennent quand on ne les appelle pas, s’arrêta devant moi et m’adressa la parole"—Prosper Mérimée
experienced 4 years, 7 months ago.
