RoR: Forum

Hey Guys, is this discussion about gays in Objectivism or am I wrong? I don't really care whose dog gets the most pussy. I don't mean to sound rude, but gays in Objectivism is an issue that is very much in need of discussion. Chris Sciabarra has highlighted some very crucial issues that may be explored further. In Total Freedom, Sciabarra discusses Rothbard's embrace of cultural conservatism, which I think marks alot of what happens within Objectivism as well. If I am correct in my assessment of Sciabarra's outline for what he calls "Liberty plus", his dialectical libertarianism is primarily a methodological approach and an essential tool for critical thinking about "freedom" and "dialectics". What we are engaging in on this site is more than a discussion of cats and dogs. It is about Objectivists and gays, and I for one, am ready to pull my claws out and go at them.

I wanted to respond to Mr. Chapstick's assertion that "Male homosexuality could aptly be described as a pathological sexual addiction, one predicated upon youth, physical beauty, fleeting sexual encounters and always looking around for the next bit of fresh meat." Is he horny or what?Aside from the poor sentence structure, there is an unspoken animosity about beautiful things: 1) youth, 2) physical beauty, 3) sexual encounters, and 4) fresh meat. Notice how Mr. Chapple seems to want to protect these things from a certain something, or a certain someone. Witness that this is how cultural conservatism operates. It is a deliberate and calculated appeal to FEAR. He wants to promote fear in the minds of gays and in the minds of those who are attempting to discuss such topics rationally.

There is nothing rational about fear, with the exception of the case for its role in survival. Fear stagnates the mind. I can see it operating within Objectivism. Ronald Merrill, Barbara Branden, Sciabarra, Tucille, and Jeff Walker, have all described the many ways that Objectivists have been know to terrorize each other. The fear I read on every page of David Kelley's "Truth and Toleration" is the recorded struggle of a brave man fighting off the irrationality in Objectivism. Kelley deserves an award for his COURAGE. Sciabarra's detailed struggle to promote real scholarship on the life of Ayn Rand is another battle against the irrationality of Peikoff.

Objectivists have been known to put people on trial. There is nothing that gays loathe more than being judged for something they don't want or need to justify: their sexuality. As Chapple so ably commented before he started contradicting himself: "Gay objectivists seem to be obssessed with sexual self-justification when it is something that shouldn't be a factor for any objectivist." Of course he meant that no Objectivist should be gay. So why do we need this site then? I congratulate this site because it promotes COURAGE. It is wonderful that we can be proud of our FREEDOM to discuss OUR differences and OUR similarities with Objectivism. Earlier I mentioned that I would not call gays "homosexuals", in keeping, I will not call myself an Objectivist or a Randian either. I guess while on this I will be a Perigonian, in honor of our Oscar Wilde loving deliciously entertaining host. I also relish the abundant presence of males on this site: "It's raining men Hallelujah!" Oh, Trinity, are you male or female, or all three in one? By this time I think Mr. Chapple has gone back to the chapel, so we may continue to be as secular as we like.

Post 21

Wednesday, June 5, 2002 - 1:16pm

I am very female. And the comments about cats and dogs was very much in keeping with this thread on homosexuality. Homosexuality was compared to one guy's dog apparently fancying the cat cause he wouldn't breed with dogs proposed to him yet tried to hump the cat. The person compared his dog weird behaviour to that of homosexuals. Although I am straight that comparison irked me. Hence my little note on how what the dog did had nothing at all to do with sexuality.

I am sorry if my being female and straight makes me less welcome on this thread. But I also think that many gay people "ghettoise" themselves by making their gayness into an issue where and when, to me at least, it isn't.

If being Objectivist means to be an individualist and to recognise one's human nature, then whether the individual's nature is hetero, bi or homosexual, it would be UN-objective to not stand by that.

Trinity

Post 22

Wednesday, June 5, 2002 - 4:00pm

Absolutely Trinity, I agree with you on the ghetto mentality of many gays. If I said anything to offend you I apologize right away, that was not my intention. Actually my intention is to provoke thought and reaction. I want to get people stirred up. Sometimes, like Socrates (a slightly older gay) you have to be a gadfly and accept the fact that others might take offense.

I actually think you have a beautiful name, unlike mine, and YES of course straight females are most welcome here. I can't fathom how bleak and empty this world would be without females. The only one to be 86ed so far was Chapple:) As you can probably see from the thread most of the males here seem to object to any kind of pigeon-holing and prefer to be considered first as individuals. The fact that we happen to be gay indeed does not define us BUT we still have to encounter society. In this case that social context is Objectivism and the context of Sciabarra's discussion is the way Objectivists perceive homosexuals. My argument previously was that because of the cultural conservatism that is characteristic of many "hardcore" Objectivists, the tendancy is to perceive gay life in terms of sexuality alone. They do not entertain the thought that gay people have made enormous contributions to American and international culture throughout history. Rand defined culture as the sum of individual contributions. She probably would not have countenanced anything like "gay culture" because she seemed to think such movements might ossify into traditions and not yield much benefit. I agree. I think that Rothbard was also right in his belief that institutions tend to become problematic when they gain political power.

I certainly wouldn't want to see Objectivists of the ARI type gaining political power. Those Objectivists in my opinion display too much of the "follow the leader" type of attitude. Peikoff recently stated that his solution to the "arab" problem should be to blow up Iran, the seat of Shiite culture. I shudder to think that Peikoff also despises gay culture, and can only imagine what he would offer up as the Final Solution.

How can Rand in the interest of art praise Michelangelo as a great sculptor, and then call gays irrational. It just doesn't make sense. Isn't that a fact/value conflict? My answer: she probably didn't realize that Michelangelo was gay. I wonder what she would have thought of Aristotle if she were to find out that he enjoyed an occasional side of "fresh meat". What would she have done if upon visiting a museum she drew close to a Grecian Urn and found Aristotle chasing a little Attic boy through the woods.:) Uh-oh

Trinity, there is also a rational explanation for why gays started moving to ghettoes like Castro in San Francisco. They were being persecuted by Americans and felt like being around people who were like themselves. The first time I went to San Francisco I didn't even want to go to Castro myself. I stayed at the St. Francis because I wanted to see where Oscar Wilde took tea. I don't like ghettoes per se but it is really amazing what you can find on an occasional stroll through the souk.

As I said before I do think that there is something more to being gay than "homosexuality". I think there is more to Objectivism than cultural conservatism. What else could have prompted Sciabarra to like Rattigan or Lindsay Perigo to enjoy Oscar Wilde? (Sorry guys) I am not saying that they chose them because of sexual reasons but I am speculating that there is something appealing about being fond of a great artist and knowing that they are also gay, if you share that. Does that make sense?

Post 23

Wednesday, June 5, 2002 - 5:35pm

I too love Oscar and I went especially to see his grave at Père Lachaise in Paris.

I can understand what you are saying about gay people flocking together at Castro. But I think you are doing an artist injustice if you like him better cause he is/was gay.

I like to joke about my typical female behaviour too at times. Such as hating my bum and always worrying about my weight. But deep down I KNOW that this is ME. I am not that way because I am a woman but because I am me. I would find it downright odd if I therefore preferred women artists on the basis that they too worry about the size of their bum and the numbers on their scales. It would somehow diminish their work.

It could be argued that gay men have a more feminine side to them than hetero males. I don't know if it is true or if that is generalising. My gay friends have certainly more style and savoir vivre than any of my straight male friends. But the reason why I admire them is because they are simply people with style and savoir vivre. What ever softer and more nurturing side they have they attribute to their character rather than their sexual orientation. This strikes me as right and good.

And in that vein I think great artists are human beings with a talent for art and not gay artists.
I know how frightening peer pressure can be since I lived through it as a teenager. But now I am grown up and I will not bend to it. And neither should people who happen to be gay and who have discovered the great gift that is objectivity. You are A Man, A Human Being. You happen to like the same gender over the opposite. You are not A Homosexual or A Gay Man. Do not help intolerant and narrow minded people diminish your humanity by identifying chiefly with other gay men rather than just with humanity itself.

All the best,
Trin

Post 24

Wednesday, June 5, 2002 - 11:10pm

Anthony's posts have been a joy to read. Yes, cultural conservatism is alive and well in the Objectivist and libertarian movements. If Objectivism is to be a radical philosophic movement it must utterly purge conservatism out. And here's one place to start: that pinnacle of conservatism, the idea of "family values". Family values are no more than a smokescreen for authority-worship, tradition-worship and collectivism. They teach that the family (that is, a certain kind of family – the nuclear one) is the basic unit of society and that society and the state ought to protect it. So the heterosexual "norm" attains legal privilege (and still has it - why won't the state recognise gay marriages?). Further, they are a product of a cultural context in which a very historically specific social arrangement (monogamous, life-long marital relationships) are termed "normal" and anything else is still widely seen as perverted or at least not matching that ideal. This is despite the fact that the heterosexual marriage ("till death do we part") and its resultant sexual behaviour is quite aberrant if we look at the behaviour of the rest of the animal kingdom (as the homophobes love to do). Why are life-long relationships considered the ideal? People grow and evolve in stages throughout their lives. People change. The person who is right for you today is unlikely to be so ten years down the track. And so there's nothing wrong with couples enjoying time together at that stage in their lives when they're right for each other, and then moving on later. The fact that gays tend to recognise this (and increasingly straights too) and move on from relationships when their needs are no longer being met is a very good thing. It's actually more natural, healthier and recognises that relationships are means to an end: individual happiness. They are not something we're duty-bound to prolong in the name of procreation or service to society.

I am anti-family values. I'm not anti-families. What the family values conservatives call families is a very specific form. I come from a so-called "broken home" (note the pejorative adjective there - what's broken about it?) and have a large "extended family" and was always given the utmost love. Gays are part of families. We're not seeking to undermine them. What I *am* seeking to undermine, and what I think all Objectivists should join me in challenging (but too often don't), is the unchallenged supremacy of "family values" - a fundamentally religious and conservative notion employed by both right and left for electoral gain and social control.

Post 25

Thursday, June 6, 2002 - 8:26am

I am not sure I can agree with you on all this. First of all there are several types of animals who mate for life and secondly I believe that love is not or should not be just about my needs being met at one point or not. That is a big part of it, granted. But I do also see loyalty and mutual support as such a part. Loving someone to me means to make them part of what I call my family of the heart.

My natural family and I have had our differences but there is no doubt in my mind that they are of value for the rest of my life and that I will do my utmost to hold on to the relationship I enjoy with them. Maybe I am lucky with the people who make up my family or maybe I just recognise that they are worth trying to work through differences.

The same goes to the family of my heart. Maybe what I "get out of them" is more at one point of my life than at the next. But this does not mean that I then suddenly would consider them not worth the effort to work through things. Of course it can happen that at one point the differences become so big that all you sanely have left is "to divorce" them. But I could never reach that decision lightly and without putting effort into the situation at first. I am loyal to my affections and could never forget what character factors drew me to that person in the first place.

So call me a conservative if you like but when it comes to romantic love I would see the man of My Choice even more worth an effort than anyone else in my life whom I could not choose (as much).

Marriage vows to me mean that this man has become so dear and important to me that I want to promise to try my best to share myself with him, do my best to support him, have his best interest as much at heart as my own and that I will not only nourish and support him in his efforts but that I will try my best to do so even when times get tough. In return I expect the same promises from him of course. I do not expect a promise of "forever" but I expect the promise to try because I seem worth it to them.

Post 26

Thursday, June 6, 2002 - 11:39am

Cameron I agree with you that "family values" is a knotty issue. It is a real onus to gay men who find themselves negatively protrayed in the pages of "conservative" or "neo-conservative" virtue-value criticism. I have in mind specifically the "neo-conservative" Gertrude Himmelfarb (wife of Irving Kristoll-nacht) whose book about the degeneration of morality is loathesome stagnation on every page. In my opinion she makes a mockery of the word virtue when she tries to tie it in with "family values".

Trinity, notice Cameron does not berate the concept of the family unit. It is specifically the tendency to attach the concept of virtue, or value, with the tribal unit. That, to be frank, is utterly appalling, and it smells rank with musky ethnicity and "Muscular Christianity". There is no sense in removing the focus of value from reason (or rationality) and placing it on a concrete such as the bloodline or a bad relationship that "shoulda coulda worked". That is what characterizes the proponents of the anti-conceptual "family-values". They are patriarchal, authoritarian, statist-elitist snobs who want to dictate morality from the papal throne. Like the Moonies, they want a sea of marriages. YUK. As a boy I remember seeing a picture of a Sun Yung Moon mass marriage madness in Manhattan. Three billion beautiful blonde brides dressed in white, three billion gorgeous grooms dressed in black. They all press into a 30 x 40 conference hall in some dismal 3* hotel in lower Manhattan. For the advocates of "family-values" it is quantity over quality. As an iconoclast I would smash their tower of Babel wedding cake, jump on the Reception table, strip down to my g-string and go at it.:) Yuk the Moonies. White weddings are for Victorian Anglicans.

I agree with Rand in her assertion that, "value is that which one acts to gain and keep, virtue is the action by which one gains and keeps it". (Braunschweiger, Oops Harry Binswanger's AR Lexicon:521:)) Marry values with reason and your mind will soon be orderly and healthy. If tradition may be likened to a garden, I say cull the lilies and roses, then burn the weeds and chaff. Cameron is showing his true colors as a follower of Rand's philosophy. It is to her benefit that she thought far ahead of her time on these issues. I think if she were still around she would be out with us guys. I certainly would hold her dollar broached fur coat while she boogies on the dance floor.:)

For what I just said I shall certainly burn in an ARI Objectivist hell. Their conservative approach is neutral and effete in my opinion. I do think that Objectivism increases libido and makes one hot and horny not meek and mild. Incidentally, to quote Dante: "The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of crisis maintain their neutrality."

Post 27

Friday, June 7, 2002 - 6:40pm

Trinity:

I've not been keeping up to date with this discussion. I thought it ended on May 10th, hehe. I believe you missed what I was saying. I was not saying that my dog was 'catosexual' or whatever, I was simply saying that my dog was attracted to cats, which is true. You are probably right that my dog hasn't learned to interact with other dogs, and I pretty much implied that in my discussion with Joe on sexual attraction. The fact is that my dog has a sexual attraction to cats, and other things.

If you follow the discussion you will see that
we were discussion sexual attraction, and how it relates to 'nature,' or volition; whether sexual attraction is defaulted upon birth, or is a consequence of choices--for an animal, the available environment would be the prime factor. You touch upon this subject with the statement: "If being Objectivist means to be an individualist and to recognise one's human nature, then whether the individual's nature is hetero, bi or homosexual, it would be UN-objective to not stand by that." By this statement you take the 'nature' stance; however, this is a contradiction of something you previously said: "Again, that your dog shows no interest in breeding with other dogs does not mean he is a catosexual. It only means he never learnt to interact with other dogs." You ought to be able to observe the contradiction. First you say that the dog has never been exposed to the right environment, and therefore cannot act on its instinct to mate with a dog; I'm sure if exposed long enough though, something might happen. Then you say that the dogs genetics should have automatically determined the dogs sexual attraction, despite never being exposed to the said environment.

*btw, I was not trying say that homosexual men act like the dog in my example, as you seem to think I was doing. I was using an example of a lower lifeform in which actions are based on animal instinct, and genetics. One can assume that if sexual orientation were determined via genetics, then an animal such as a dog should not act contra, and there could possibly be a problem in getting a *homosexual gene* via natural selection.

With that said, I'll say again that I see no reason why Objectivists should have a problem with homosexuals as long as they participate in romantic relationships. If anyone has a reason, feel free to share it.

Russ.

Post 28

Friday, June 7, 2002 - 6:44pm

Anthony:

Yes this discussion is about Objectivism and homosexuality. Sexual attraction has very much to do with sexuality. Wouldn't you say?

Post 29

Friday, June 7, 2002 - 7:23pm

Anthony:

I would like you to share with me what this cultural conservatism "hardcore?" Objectivists have is. What is it? I like to look clean an nice, am I culturally conservative? Yes Objectivists tend to look at gay life as it relates to sexuality. Why? Because gay life IS sexuality. No, most Objectivists don't entertain the thought that gay people have made enormous contributions to American and international culture throughout history. Why? Because an Objectivist shouldn't balkanize success in the manner in which you speak.

Also, why did you, out of ignorance, grill me on my posts on sexual attraction, and then show your ignorance about Leonard Peikoff by bringing up distorted statements on the war on terrorism, which has nothing to do with homosexuality?

Post 30

Saturday, June 8, 2002 - 2:33am

Russ thank you for offering me the privilege to respond to a few of your questions. Those addressed specifically to me would include the following:

1. Doesn't attraction have very much to do with sexuality?

I don't remember ever having said that attraction did not have anything to do with sexuality, I merely stated that I myself am not interested in the humping habits of the lower species. Neither do I think that it relates directly to the questions regarding the way in which, if I may be so bold, culturally conservative Objectivists alienate gay people. As you see I said "It's raining men, Hallelujah", and not "It's raining cats and dogs, or bombshells."

2. You would like me to share with you what it is that I personally perceive as cultural conservatism (hardcore) within Objectivism.

Ah, again this touchy prickly subject. Russ no one wants to be considered culturally conservative. That is why they grab their hat and coat and head quickly for the door when they realize that those around them are not. That is precisely what Mr. Chapple did, and I think he is a cultural conservative, and rightly headed for the door. You on the other hand, I suspect, are merely aggressive and not culturally conservative. But I am being unfair because I have not said what it is yet.

In The Objectivist Newsletter, Rand stated that "Objectivists are not "conservatives". We are radicals for capitalism..." (AR Lexicon: 95)In order to define conservative we must first define radical. Rand tried to do so, albeit not exhaustively. I suspect she was too busy living it. She did however state that "radical" means "fundamental" by which she meant "moralist" and as you know her concept of morality refers specifically to rationality. My advice to you, does not issue from the mouth of REASON, or from the godess of rationality, whomever you may think that is, but from common sense: "El que vive en casa de vidrio no debe tirar piedras" (Cervantes), or "He who lives in a house of glass should not throw stones"...to be more specific, if that is what you require for your libido to function, THINK RATIONALLLY FOR THE FIRST TIME. Look outside of yourself Russ there is a whole world of people, will you value life objectively, or will you confine yourself to judgment ex temporae or ex cathedrae. That would be, intrinsicism. It is your choice, make it.I think I have made my point abundantly clear.

3. Are you (Russ) culturally conservative because you like to look clean?

No Russ, no more than a gay man might be considered irrational, or immoral, or disgusting, because he is clean, attractive, well-dressed and successful. That is precisely my point, being clean does not mean that you are not also culturally conservative. I draw your particularly inconsequent attention or dis-attention to what we in the USA call "Log Cabin Republicans", of whom I suspect you know nothing at all. They are gays who cling to conservative ideas and embrace among others, AYN RAND!! Drawing from your personal hygiene avoids the question of cultural conservatism altogether. Try to go at something larger than what you personally presume important.

I will infer the rest of your questions to be:

4. Isn't gay life mostly or primarily about sexuality?

Absolutely not!!! We gays, are not primarily sexual creatures, no more than my mother and father. Unfortunately,in your infinite and highly PERSONAL wisdom we seem to prefer rather dog-like or canine behaviour, since that is the only reference in which you can speak. You, unfortunately, are not objective or polite by any sense of either term. You seem to think that reality, unlike what Ayn Rand confirmed, exists in Russ. Maybe you subscribe to some other reality, it is certainly not objective or empirical.

5. Why should Objectivists celebrate the cultural contributions of gay people, wouldn't this be balkanizing success?

Balkanization refers to the former Yugoslavia, which unfortunately does not even begin to describe the ways in which you portray it. Context has some reference here. Maybe you should stop using Ayn Rand's terminology and acquire some of your own. Maybe you might say, and I hate to give my opponent a hint, "I use Rand verbatim because I cannot think outside of the context in which she spoke", that, my dear, is cultural conservatism. It is the inimitigable, unpardonable crime of using the ideas of others to further ones own success.

6. What has Leonard Peikoff's attitude toward the war on terrorism have to do with homosexuality?

I think the context of my argument shows that clearly enough. In the interest of politeness I apologize if what I have said gives particular offense to anyone, and will therefore say no more of my opinions regarding Mr. Peikoff. If you wish to know in what way I think Mr. Peikoff's opinions on homosexuality relate to other opinions he holds on terrorism I would be glad to do so, but this will not occur on this site. In keeping with my prior congratulatory remarks about the COURAGE that this site promotes, I see quite clearly that not all of its participants encourage boldness, to say nothing of rationality. My private opinions about the subject in question will no longer appear here.

Post 31

Saturday, June 8, 2002 - 5:42pm

Anthony,

Excuse me for the tangent, but why is ‘Balkanization’ exclusively a Rand term? I’ve seen it used a lot outside of Rand.

Kernon

Post 32

Saturday, June 8, 2002 - 7:22pm

Kernon I'm beginning to think that all of the tangents are my own:) You are quite right that many people use the term "Balknization" to describe different phenomena (Oops that may be classed as PURE KANTIAN terminology):) At least Trinity had a different term for gay socialization. She said, quite correctly mind you, "many gay people "ghettoise" themselves ".

To balkanize, according to Webster's dictionary, (finally quoting something other than the Ayn Rand Lexicon) :) is "to break up (as a region) into smaller and often hostile units." We might think that Balkanization refers to this political meaning. Rand's much cited and much quoted essay "Global Balkanization" refers to this term in order to describe something other than its original political context. She broadens the definition to include all sorts of activities that people do in social situations. She mentions the glorification of ethnicity as one example. She said "if you see one group of people jumping up and down and clapping their hands, you have seen them all." I think alot of field anthropologists would have smiled at that bit of wit.

Now the fact that I said that many Objectivists refuse to credit gays for successes they have achieved in the advancement of civilization suddenly launched Mr. Russ on a tirade. He seems to hold the opinion that if I were to say "X person, a wealthy and highly successful woman or man happens to be gay", I am suddenly "Balkanizing success", which, by the way, we Objectivists SHOULD NOT DO. But again, I do not think that I was doing that, and in keeping with what I said in a previous post, I am not an Objectivist but a "Perigonian", from the Isle of Perigo, where we quote Oscar Wilde out of context, because we can.:) I also previously stated to Trinity that I did not especially like gay ghettoes. I did give a rational explanation for why many gay males make the Hadj to Mecca and never come back. I said also that an occasional stroll in a souk can be a delightful experience. Now I suppose somebody will tell me that I think all gays are Arabs, and build a theory on that "plethora of ignorances".

Regretfully I will not be keeping up with the site as much in the next few weeks as I am moving to NY. No, I am not going to move to Christopher St. in Greenwich Village and balkanize or ghettoize myself! :) I will be in Long Island. I should hope not to be burned in effigy during my absence:) And yes, I do have an affinity for little yellow smiley faces.

Post 33

Saturday, June 8, 2002 - 8:48pm

Oh, I forgot to say, I am flying Aero Chihuahua with Sra. Martinez for protection, and I shall have my laptop with me just in case any of you decide to get saucy.:)

Post 34

Saturday, June 8, 2002 - 10:56pm

Anthony:

Quite a lot of typing. It's unfortunate that you didn't have much to say. I don't plan on getting in a cursing, or name calling match as I can find more important things to do. I will point out though, that you did not elaborate how Objectivists are culturally conservative, and that breaking up success into race, class, gender, or sexual orientation is 'balkanization' no matter how you cut it.

**btw, I've never read "Global Balkanization." For someone who is so deeply devoted to reality and empirical evidence, you sure know how to make unjustified remarks on my character and intellectual integrity.

Post 35

Sunday, June 9, 2002 - 12:24am

Oh, I forgot to say, I am flying Aero Chihuahua with Sra. Martinez for protection, and I shall have my laptop with me just in case any of you decide to get saucy.:)

Post 36

Sunday, June 9, 2002 - 10:16am

First you speak of my ignorance, never substantiate anything you say, and then tell me you have better things to do. Like what? Like grab your hat and coat and run for the nearest exit?
For the most part you’re incorrigible one, might I add, "saucy"- I will not omit sassy. You’re just the sort that is so able to recognize that the categories you mention: race, class, gender and sexual orientation, in fact are somehow significant to you although you previously stated that they were inconsequential. Might I add, typing is not a bad thing, Rand seems to have done quite a bit of it herself. How unfortunate that your lack of typing has even less to say.

Why don't you then, find better things to do, such as, might I suggest, find a way to spread Objectivism to the gay community. That, by the way, is the challenge that Sciabarra's work implies. If, as you say, gays are all about sex, and have little or no ability to be rational or volitional, then I can see why you might scurry off. Oh, but you came back again to post. Why?

You have not once answered a single question I have posed. And yet, in your inflated egoistic way, you continue to compel me to answer your own nagging questions.

I never said that YOU had integrity. Yet you seem to infer it from what I have "typed":) Notice how, in my voluminous posts I quote references while you only shoot from the hip. No, I have never said you have integrity, neither have I said that you lack such a quality. Instead I have said that you seem to think that because you are clean, and by the way, I have not smelled you, but you think that I have implied that you are culturally conservative. Well if you are as humorless, colorless, and odorless as your writing, then I don’t think I should taken any notice of you at all. Now I will go on to clear up that mess I created by my statement that cultural conservatism exists, indeed plagues Objectivism.

I have my own horror file. I think “hardcore” Objectivists, in general, give off bad vibes. I live in Arizona where there are quite a few Objectivists. This happens to be what Americans call a “conservative” state. The Objectivists in Arizona tend, on the whole, to adopt the same priggishness; I wouldn’t even call that morality. I have been to several different groups, but on one occasion I took a friend to a meeting and they made fillet mignon out of her. I had to hear her comments about “the way they treated me” all the way home. She didn’t even share the cab fare. After that dreadful experience I will never take anyone to an Objectivist meeting again, unless, of course, the meeting is about Objectivism and not conducted by Objectivists.

I think Objectivists rather reflect Rand’s own tendency to define culture by what it is not. They do the same for art. If you want me to be clearer, I mean they tend to say “culture” is NOT this, and it’s NOT that, and so on down the list. Furthermore, they have a tendency to copy one another. If the high priest of Objectivism decides that this month we will honor Rostand, Schiller, Victor Hugo, and teedle-wink music, then that is what everybody does.

Can you elaborate on your previous comment “ I can see how most of the homosexual culture is contra to Objectivism.”? Are you attempting to balkanize on our failures without mentioning our succeses?

Cheers

Post 37

Monday, June 10, 2002 - 11:29am

Well Russ, cato-sexual was an invented word of mine, I do apologise if the meaning was not as clear as I assumed. I thought it fits a dog that you say is sexually attracted to cats.

And as far as my comment on your dog's lack of interaction with other dogs goes, no, there is no contradiction that I can see. After all, if you never had any interactions with other humans you might not know how to approach them either- presuming your lack of social skills wouldn't just make you jump on the first female you see.

Plus, dogs are pack animals and live their life according to a sort of hierarchy just like wolves do. If a dog never knew other dogs he might well have a difficult time to know where in the hierarchy of dog-life he might feature cause that is usually determined through puppy play.

And yes I WOULD say that any type of animal (including humans) has a gene that would make him or her attracted to only their own species and that this does not fall under volition. (I would venture to say that Catherine the Great was not so much an exception to the rule as just really sick!) But if you really think that an attraction between the different species of animals (including humans) is down to volition, then go out and see if you could fancy that pretty orang-utan lady at your local zoo.

As for your last comment, I think it is a shame for anyone not to seek true romance over just sex. No matter if they are gay or heterosexual. Hypocritically enough though you hardly ever hear such outrage over a promiscuous hetero male as you do over a gay males.

I suspect that many homophobes dance around the issue that is really making them uncomfortable about gay sex, which is sexual practises. Many of these same homophobic males though would not think twice about suggesting that same practice towards their girlfriends or wives. (And just in case any of you do not know what I am talking about I shall say it now: anal sex.) Which makes me think the issue really is that those homophobes think how horrible it would be to be on the "receiving end". So would that mean it's ok if it's a woman who uhm... "gets it" but not if it's a man? And if so, why and why not?

Post 38

Tuesday, June 11, 2002 - 2:13pm

Meaningful discussion on this forum about ending the irrationality of homophobia throughout the Objectivist movement has indeed ended as I thought. It's time to grab my hat and coat, and run for the nearest exit.

Post 39

Tuesday, June 11, 2002 - 10:50pm