Valentine's Day, Duty, and Sexuality

Valentine’s Day, Duty, and Sexuality

My friend the Philosophical Detective has some pretty strong feelings about Valentine’s Day, which he writes about here and here.  In addition, he as written an interesting post regarding sexuality that I’ve been meaning to respond to. I think he’s on the right track re: sexuality, but we part ways significantly on the subject of Valentine’s Day.

Sexuality

In my opinion, the core of sexuality lies in understanding what is meant by masculinity and feminity. The Detective himself is led to this question and he attempts to list various things which are “masculine” and “feminine” and identify common denominators. I think this is a good way to go about it, but when I was asking these questions I came at it from a different direction. Here goes:

“Masculine” and “feminine” are polar concepts. What I mean by “polar” is that each half of the pair is used to contrast the other, and thus give the other meaning. Neither can exist on their own epistemologically, and each has meaning only in contradistinction to the other.

In the most general terms, “masculine” means “of or pertaining to male-ness,” while feminine means “of or pertaining to female-ness.” But what are “male-ness” and “female-ness.” Since we’re really just talking about humans, I’m going to speak about what these terms mean for people. I’ll leave aside the matriarchal hyena’s and whatnot.

The most obvious differences in men and women are physical. Men and women are different in their genitalia of course, but also in their size, shape, body mass / muscle ratio, etc.. Most men are taller, more massive, and stronger than women. Yes, there are some women that are taller, more massive, etc. than some men—but this is not true generally. The point I’m trying to get at here is that generally, at a perceptual level, we are all aware that men are taller, more muscularly massive, and stronger than women. We associate these qualities with “male-ness,” thus they are “masculine.”

By way of comparison, women are generally shorter, less muscularly massive, less strong, and much curvier than men. There’s also the fact that they can bear children. Yep, that’s feminine too. These are facts that are open to immediate perceptual observation. Theses facts are intimately bound to what we think of when we think “male” or “female.”

There are psychological differences between the sexes as well. I’m not going into detail here because I can support my theories without this information, and because it would be difficult to lay my hands on the materials that show it right now.  I’ll probably take this point up in a separate post some time.

Anyway, it should be clear that at least some of “masculine” and “feminine” are tied to direct observation. Indeed, part of why they’re so hard to talk about is because they are first-level concepts. It’s like talking about “red” or “blue.” You can’t really do anything but point.

Here’s where I think it gets interesting. We don’t really become self-aware until our teens. Our adolescence is when we really start to question who we are, what we’ve been taught, our own worth, etc. In addition to this, we also have the onset of puberty which heightens our awareness of our own body. In answering the question of “who I am,” we must first answer the question of “what I am.” I am a human being, obviously; but what does that mean? Philosophy provides the answer to that question. In addition to being a human being, I am a male or female—what does that mean? Observation provides the answer to that question.

It’s easy to see that for someone to have good self-esteem they must understand the value of being human; they must appreciate their own rational faculty and use it. They must evaluate themselves according to human standards, and revel in their humanity. I believe that the same is true for their gender. To have good self-esteem, one must also appreciate their own sex, and evaluate themselves according to sexual standards, and revel in their own sexuality.

Being human is not polar. We can distinguish ourselves from inanimate objects, birds, trees, etc.. Being of a particular gender is polar. We can only distinguish ourselves sexually from the opposite gender. Our sense of ourselves qua male or female is only possible in the context of interaction with the opposite sex. To experience ourselves as a rational being, we must think, act on the basis of our thought to produce the requirements of our survival, and consume the product of our effort. To experience ourselves as male or female, we must interact with the opposite sex. In the presence of the opposite sex, the fact of one’s gender is always there as an undercurrent, heightening or own awareness of ourself.

Another observation: the observations about the relative size and strength of men vs. women has some psychological consequences for both men and women, but moreso on women. Personal safety is more of concern for women when interacting with men than vice versa. Pairing the average woman with the average man puts her in a situation where the man could overpower her and harm her. Yes, a woman could have a gun for self-protection. But observe that we do not advise men to take self-defense classes so that they’ll feel safe walking through a parking lot at night.

Still another observation: the act of sex itself puts a woman in an extremely vulnerable position. Consider that she is alone with someone nearly twice her size and strength who is atop, around, and even inside her body. She is utterly at his mercy in this context. Things such as who likes to be on top don’t matter in this context. Even if she is on top, it is still within the man’s power to force her to do anything he wants.  What does this mean for the rational woman then?  How could she ever enjoy sex if this is the situation she has to be in?

For many women, this vulnerability is the very idea of good sex. Consider the cover of just about every romance novel ever published: Man bending the woman backward over his arm, her head thrown back, hair hanging behind her… Consider the popularity of “the Hollywood Kiss”: “Woman’s arms around man’s neck, man’s arms around woman’s waist, man 4-8 inches taller than woman.” Women seem to love the idea of submitting to a man’s power. Many women have a “rape fantasy,” in which they are not actually rape, but are rather the victims of “surprised, forceful sex,” as a friend of mine put it. Of course, she quickly qualified that it would have to be with her boyfriend—but the idea of his “coming out of nowhere” and “taking her” was very exciting to her.

What about men? How many men have not enjoyed pinning a woman’s arms down, or behind her back, or sinking their fingers in her head, tilting her face up for a kiss? All of these actions are rife with a flavor of dominance. We enjoy it too.

This sense of vulnerability is not always pleasing for women. Being alone with a man she doesn’t know in a parking garage at night is not likely to be a pleasant experience for most women. They are likely to feel trepidation, fear, and a strong desire to get to their car as quickly as possible, make sure they’re not being followed, etc. The guy probably doesn’t think at thing about it.

The factor that makes the difference for women is “trust.” If a woman trusts a man, then she can be alone with him without fear for her personal safety. She can be submissive or vulnerable to him without fear for her personal safety. She can revel in her own vulnerability (femininity) relative to his power (masculinity) without contradiction. Sex in this context becomes not just a celebration of self, but a celebration of self qua woman. The same is true for men.

Suddenly some other things start to make more sense, like why do men woo women? Why do the asking-for-numbers, the dinner-paying, the door-holding, etc.? In an attempt to gain the woman’s trust. When we send a woman flowers, or hold the door, or whatever, we are sending her a message: “See, you can trust me. Your happiness, your welfare, your pleasure—these are my values. I won’t hurt you.”

It’s not surprise to me that this mimics another common way that people enjoy sex: the slow seduction. In my opinion the slow seduction model (“dinner, candles, soft music, etc.”) mimics the early courtship ritual.

I can’t offer a survey of all the different ways that men and women rationally enjoy sex. I’m just offering these examples to illustrate a connection between observable physiological differences and their associated psychological consequences. Further, validating the concepts of “masculinity” and “femininity” still leaves a lot of room for optionality in male-female relations  Again, I’m just describing some common scenarios to concretize my ideas.

Valentine’s Day

Valentine’s Day has been corrupted by altruism. The Detective says this, and I agree completely. This Fark headline shows that in Japan the same joyless duty-bound attitude is taken by women toward men, with the same resentful results. Seems altruism can find a thousand ways to make something beautiful, ugly. However, this doesn’t mean that there’s anything wrong with Valentine’s Day—just that there’s something wrong with altruism. To pervert something as wonderful as romantic love by turning it into a duty is more revolting than I have words for, but I’m not willing to give up Valentine’s Day to the altruists: I want my day to celebrate romantic love!

So what is the real meaning of Valentine’s Day? It’s like Christmas—only better. Christmas is great because it gives you a chance to focus on letting your loved ones know exactly how much you appreciate them—with loot. Valentine’s Day offers the same thing—but more specifically. It is an opportunity for you and your most-loved one to celebrate the most important of all your relationships—your romance with one another—preferably with loot and sex! Flowers and Candy are properly just symbols. Their only meaning is like the meaning of a Christmas present—a token that represents something much deeper.

The Detective is right: romance is “a smile, a conversation, a walk, a dance.” Valentine’s Day is properly a celebration of romance. It’s an opportunity to take a look at all the million different ways we love someone, highlight the whole experience, and say “you know the past year of washing dishes together, taking care of the kids, going to the movies, cuddling on the couch, etc.?—I love that, and I love you, and I want more.”  It’s taking time out to focus on all those small moments as a whole, and to express how important those moments are to you. And yes, celebrating romance is romantic.

Speaking personally

I don’t have a significant other in my life right now. Even so today is a happy day for me. I can’t celebrate an actual romance in my life, but I celebrate the idea of romance. I celebrate the level of intimacy and companionship that romance represents. I celebrate my capacity for it, and my worthiness of it. I abhor the duty-bound mentality that most people approach this holiday with—but it’s too important to me to give it up to the likes of them.

Thanks for reading.