RoR: Forum

Olivia is just another bossy c... trying to get her way. Even she admits she is bitch, as are all women, straight or lesbian. While many gay men project a nice front, I think we all know that women want to destroy us, dominate us, or control us. I think a gay Atlantis, filled with productive and creative men would be a way to be free of this. Lesbians could live on the other side of the island, and raise the children fostered by artificial insemination. Jon Galt would be our first president. Chris, when we will see the whole giant penis. And welcome to the club, Kernon. A toast to another gay objectivist. The list is growing as is my lust for Jon Galt.

Post 41

Monday, October 28, 2002 - 2:01pm

I know I said I didn't want to say more about Jon Galt, but I do think Elizabeth put her finger on an important issue. She writes above:

"Chris has not put Jon Galt in the article as the person to emulate or admire. It was a series on Objectivism and Homosexuality, and Jon Galt is a gay male whose life has been influenced greatly by Rand. Chris interviewed many people for the article, and most were listed as anonymous. Jon Galt wasn�t. Chris didn�t feel that Jon�s profession warranted excluding him from the article."

This is true, even more so. This was the finale of a series that featured highlights from interviews of well over 100 people, many of whom, yes, chose to remain anonymous, and many of whom expressed views with which I didn't agree.

Interestingly, when Part 3 of the series was published ("The Horror File"), for example, participants to the SOLO HQ discussion didn't raise any objections to aspects of a statement made by one of my anonymous interview subjects---aspects that I, personally, find much more obscene than anything regarding Jon Galt. But in my journalistic capacity, I simply reported these words with no editorializing:

"'Frank' [who, unlike Jon Galt, chose to remain anonymous] does not associate knowingly with homosexuals; he is 'increasingly inclined to regard homosexuality as an unhealthy psychological disorder,' with serious 'health hazards' resulting from such practices as 'anal intercourse, fisting, rimming, and golden showers,' all of which spread hepatitis, HIV and other STDs. Frank also believes that a sizable portion of gays engage in sexual torture; they have a higher homicide, suicide, and accident rate than their heterosexual counterparts, and they remain 'collectivist . . . foot soldiers of cultural Marxism.' For Frank, gays are in a perennial state of 'sexual and relationship nihilism,' something with which Objectivism can ill afford to be associated."

I raise this point because it is important to remember that I interviewed people from many walks of life for this series, and that the interviews took the better part of a year to complete. I state explicitly that Jon Galt's is "only one small voice in a larger and diverse choir of gay men and women who unashamedly sing Ayn Rand�s praises."

Among those praising Rand were gay men and women who were identified in my series as philosophers, writers, biologists, psychologists, advocates of polyamory, monogamy, bisexuality, SMBD, and so forth. A very wide range of professions and ideas about sexuality were represented.

I also concluded the series with an important observation---with which I concur---made by a colleague of mine who emphasized that gay men and women "have more or less the same range of variation as heterosexual people in interests, intelligence, cognitive style, integrity, responsibility, and other attributes..."

Clearly, much of that variation is on display in this series. I'm sorry more people weren't willing to go "on the record" with their names; we have a lot more work to do if we want to break the taboos surrounding this subject. I think Lindsay Perigo's observation in part 4 of the series is right on target: "It struck me again that Objectivists didn�t really have their act together on this question. . . . The fact that so many of your respondents . . . wanted to remain anonymous when quoted, suggests they still don�t."

Cheers,
Chris

===
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra
===

Post 42

Monday, October 28, 2002 - 3:43pm

Myron,

I am afraid I cannot agree with anything that you have posted here. I do not share your opinion about women, that they are any of the things you describe. I wanted to say that before when I read it in your original post, but I was caught up with the thread. I don't believe that "women want to destroy us", that is SOOO wrong. Neither do I believe that there is any chance that we might survive as men or as a race, without women. I asked my Dad and he tends to agree with me:) I cannot imagine a world so dark and colorless as you propose in an Atlantis for gay males? I don't see how you could have possibly gathered any of those things from Sciabarra's work. What you have to say is completely unbelievable and I couldn't possibly concede even at any stretch of my imagination.

MOST IMPORTANTLY: From my knowledge Kernon is not gay and he has never intimated such a thing. This whole thing is preposterous. Furthermore I wish to apologize to you Kernon for saying what I did. I was making a joke (and I even said so) not about you, but about Ari who incorrectly assumed you were gay.

Post 43

Monday, October 28, 2002 - 5:40pm

Anthony,

Thanks for your note of clarification to Myron Ford! No apology is necessary, though I, naturally enough, accept and appreciate it.

Perhaps we'll have come all the way as a society when "coming of the closet" will be an expression that no one understands anymore, much less denotes a particular sexual orientation.

I actually wasn't going to bother correcting Myron, though, come to think of it, my wife does check this site occasionally! \ch{:)}

Post 44

Monday, October 28, 2002 - 6:47pm

Chris

I am in total agreement with Lindsay in regards to the statement in your last post, about the failure of Objectivists to respond publically. I view this as very disheartening, and since I don't know the people involved and their reasons, I wonder if you have any thoughts on this?

No doubt as you said earlier, people connected to ARI were either afraid to talk about homosexuality, or afraid to talk to you. But that, leaves out the rest of the free Objectivist world.

Also, your example of Frank is an example I have encountered many times. Don't blame the homosexual, blame the effects of homosexuality. Yet, I see this type of response as laden with fear, and directed toward the outer world, instead of his own inner world. Ideally, homosexual men having sex has nothing to do with his life, and most healthy heterosexuals I know could care less what homosexuals do in bed. So why is he concerned about fisting, or golden showers? What is it touching in his inner world that would concern him to the point of being worried about gay men fisting, but not worried about straight couples having unprotected sex, or married men going to brothels. (Statistically, the latter at a much higher level, and more dangerous in that these men are returning to their wives.)

Yet, whether Frank, or Tom, Dick or Harry there has been a tremendous decrease in anti-gay sentiment in a very short time, much of it due to the fact that gay people are starting to assert themselves. I lived in New York at the time of Stonewall, and please believe me, the changes are overwhelming, and I think this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Olivia mentions her staunch defense of you, and other gays, and I think this is precisely the thing that has to be done, especially in the Objectivist world, where there is no violence or threats of violence, and where most people, in my opinion are decent people.

Yet, my heart is still heavy and stunned over the lack of Objectivists willing to go public, especially the gay Objectivists.

Post 45

Tuesday, October 29, 2002 - 4:27am

Ari, I agree with your assessment here, and I believe there has been a monumental shift in cultural attitudes over a relatively short period of time. While conservatives argue that we're simply "slouching toward Gomorrah," I think it is a positive thing that more and more people are willing to go public and to assert themselves.

But the question you raise about gay Objectivists' unwillingness to go public in this series is a valid one. Aside from the reasons I've given, I think there was another issue at work. In all too many instances, those who were giving testimony were mentioning their unpleasant experiences with others. Even if they were not willing to divulge the identities of these others, they were concerned that by mentioning their own identities, people might form accurate conclusions about the identities of the "others" who were being discussed in the interview. I think most people wanted to protect their own privacy and to keep confidential the identities of the people they were discussing.

It's a small world. And the Objectivist world is even smaller. If, for example, in discussing the perceived "homophobia" of a particular Objectivist club leader in Omaha, Nebraska, the interview subject divulges her own name, how many steps does one have to take before grasping who the club leader is as well?

Now, while this might have made for interesting journalism, it would have also created a lot of conflicting testimony that might have lost the essential point. I think people were less interested in raising particular objections to particular people, thereby getting involved in a "she-said, he-said" debate, and more interested in just talking about their experiences, feeling free enough to discuss them without impugning the characters of others, and opening up a can of personal worms that they'd prefer to keep sealed.

It is a legitimate concern, and considering that some of my interview subjects actually mentioned the names of "famous" people in Objectivism with whom they'd had unpleasant experiences, we would have opened up a can of worms bordering on legal action. Interview subjects didn't want to do this, and I didn't encourage them to do anything with which they felt uncomfortable.

This is a very hard subject to discuss for some people---especially when you're talking about experiences with your Objectivist college roommate or experiences with your Objectivist psychotherapist or experiences with various Objectivist writers. The subject is difficult enough; going public and naming names heightens the difficulty, rather than liberating one to talk freely about it.

I'm not justifying the attitudes one way or the other. I'm simply saying: it is understandable.

Cheers,
Chris
===
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/update.htm
===

Post 46

Tuesday, October 29, 2002 - 4:08pm

Chris

Yes, the changes have been dramatic, even away from the major gay areas and cities. In the old days, we joked about gay America as the Christopher Street docks and the two outposts in California, and the Sahara Desert in-between.

Yet, the changes in the Objectivist world, as I see it, have not been dramatic, and rather disappointing at that. Reading your take of the situation, I could see the reluctance, and the problems it could create, especially as you say, Objectivism is a small community of people.

One of the big changes, I have seen in our society is the willingness of people to stand-up and be counted. Many, many years ago, I remember the football player, David Kopay revealing himself on t.v. as a gay man. Can you imagine the shock waves that went through the gay community? A macho football player who played professionally stating he was gay. What a powerful example! I remember it as such a powerful, positive force toward gay liberation.

Then, too, there was a Tom Snider show from one of the Manhattan gay tubs, where men came out of the closet on national t.v. I remember watching that with a group of people, celebrating as if our troops were winning another tremendous battle.

I see this as the way for gay Objectivists, and I hope your series will bring about a profound effect in this regard. As a matter of fact, it already has, and as time goes by, perhaps the effect will snowball.

Personally, after spending some time on WetheLiving, I had thrown in the towel as far as Objectivism, and as far as Objectivism and homosexuality. While definitely more accepting than ARI, I got the distinct impression many people on that list consider homosexuality to be an infliction, a disease, a curse to be hidden and not to be discussed.

I see homosexuality as a positive lifestyle, if one lives positively, and I am definitely not going to spend whatever time I have left, hiding behind a wall of fear.

Thanks for the good work. You really deserve a big round of applause.

Post 47

Tuesday, October 29, 2002 - 5:32pm

Anthony

Micturation. I am still laughing from your reply to Mr. Chappel, if you remember the exchange, which I have just read. Surprisingly, I read his post the other day, got disgusted, and stopped at that point, while later on using his example in one of my posts.

Today, I continued and saw your reply as well as that of Chris. Do you know, I am probably much older than you, yet I had no idea what micturation meant, and had to look it up.

His whole post would be a perfect example of fear and loathing in the Objectivist world, except I think his example is an extreme case, and a case, as Chris says, of obsessing on the homosexual lifestyle by someone who claims to be an opponent. I would add a perverse and distorted obsession at that, in fact extremely distorted would be a better qualifier.

Anyway, don't have time to elaborate right now, Anthony, but your posts on the other forum are first-rate and extremely interesting. Will post more later.

Thanks for the laugh. And happy micturation avoidance to all, no matter your lifestyle.

Post 48

Tuesday, October 29, 2002 - 9:34pm

Hi Ari!

I'm glad you enjoyed my reply to Mr. Chapelle. I really did have to look the word micturation up. You don't know how hard HIS post made ME laugh. He didn't sound like an Objectivist to me at all. I thought he just had a warped understanding of sexuality in general. Chris phrased it perfectly though: "Methinks thou dost protest too much". Indeed, when someone goes on at such length, you kind of know what is on their mind.

At the time, I had just terminated a relationship, so it was kind of like therapy. LOL No, of course it bears repeating, Mr. Chapelle was not my boyfriend:)

Post 49

Wednesday, October 30, 2002 - 2:07pm

This five-part collection of philosophical sommersaults, which attempts to declare objectivism as compatible with homosexuality is laughable.

Values must be life affirming- homosexuality is not. Homosexuality, at its worst it is abusive (most homosexuals have been sexually abused, and nearly all- damned near 100% of sexually abused children are abused by members of their own sex.)
At its best it is simply harmless- a "kink" if you will. But under no circumstances can it honestly be called life-affirming.

Let everyone practice it for a generation and see what happens.

It is the worst type of primacy of consciousness to pretend that a close friendship (like Francisco/Rearden or Roark/Wynand) is an "unintentional" expression of Rands supposed hidden homosexual values.
The nature of the fictional friendships has been spelled out explicitly in the novels and the nonfiction, it is pretense to redifine them according to nonessentials.

From the US military, to modern art, the performing arts, and now even child rearing, every niche of society has a group of nihilists attempting to redifine it by nonessentials. Now it seems objectivism is in someone's sights.

Objectivism has a lot to offer homosexual indviduals- it guarantees your right to be what you are in your own home.

But don't make the mistake of believing homosexuality has anything to offer objectivism. It doesn't. Neither does any other disorder, fetish, kink, or turn-on.

Sexuality (as a topic)is not part of philosophy, it is more a hybrid of psychology and phisiology, the rational study of which depends on a rational philosophy.

To try invert that hierarchy is obviously motivated by some form of nihilistic heterophobia.

Those who are homosexual, and objectivist, should be objective enough to state honestly "I am damaged, through no way of my own, possibly beyond repair, but I will live a life of reason."

Ed Ronin

Post 50

Wednesday, October 30, 2002 - 2:11pm

PS From Ed Ronin:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Post 51

Wednesday, October 30, 2002 - 7:27pm

Ed Ronin, If you are a real person (and I really have my doubts) one sees right away your statistics about abuse are a product of your wishes and your inner torment.

Argumentation requires facts retrieved from the objective world, and not facts culled from your feelings and whims.

If homosexuality repulses you, say so, and refrain from hiding behind an intellectual facade. If you allow yourself to access your feelings of repulsion, you will learn something about yourself and your sexuality, and it won't be a philosophy lesson.

Post 52

Thursday, October 31, 2002 - 6:38am

Ari:

I'll conceed a few points- my quote "Damn near 100%" is based more on my own experiences than on objectively recorded data.

And yes, I am repulsed by homosexuals who see the world thru gay-colored glasses(the nihilistic types who lisp and act like queens) in the same way I am repulsed by Blacks (or whites or american indians or Christians) who see the world through lenses colored by race-tinted glasses.

No, Ed Ronin is not my given name. It is a legally changed replacement of a long slavic name that I just don't identify with. Most everyone in this room knows that a Ronin is a masterless samurai, anyway. (But I don't see that as any more pretentious as a Gay pornstar using Jon Galt as a name [see Franciscos sex-speech to place pornstars in their correct moral category]

I concede these points in the interest of intellectual honesty and so as not to be accused of doing a "hit and run" post.

I have some questions though, are there any circumstances in which you would judge a heterosexual, who is repulsed by homosexuality, as anything other than a repressed homosexual?

Is homosexuality a response to automatized value judgements, which can be volitionally changed?

If yes is do I have the right to judge those values?

My issue is this, (and if I am sloppy it is because I'm at work hot-keying back and forth between this post and my real job- I'll stay away from stats) My guess is that there are both moral and immoral reasons that some people are gay, ditto for straights- but I think their are gender-collectivsts out there just as there are race-collectivists, and I don't think either have a place in objectivism.

I haven't had time to edit this, and usually don't when online, and have learned a good lesson from you Ari, about not tossing off numbers.

Gotta get back to work!

Ed (now known as) Ronin

Post 53

Thursday, October 31, 2002 - 8:29am

Hello Everyone!

Ronin wrote:

Values must be life affirming- homosexuality is not. Homosexuality, at its worst it is abusive (most homosexuals have been sexually abused, and nearly all- damned near 100% of sexually abused children are abused by members of their own sex.)

At its best it is simply harmless- a "kink" if you will. But under no circumstances can it honestly be called life-affirming.

Let everyone practice it for a generation and see what happens.

End quote.

I won't comment on the aspect of homosexuality being 'at worst abusive' though from my own experiences and observations I do see a trend that many homosexuals (and heterosexuals, kinky people, etc.) have been abused in one way or another. There are many kinds of abuse and we are all affected by those events to some degree.

I'm curious though as to how homosexuality (or kink, or any other deviation from the 'norm' is not life affirming.

I am inferring from the statement that if we ALL practiced homosexuality for a generation something would happen in a generation ... my guess would be that there would be no children to carry on in the name of humanity. :)

As a woman, I find this an interesting stance. I thought in Objectivism, it is a woman's right to choose whether or not to reproduce. Nature doesn't force us to spread our legs and get inseminated by any passing male. In fact, Objectivism guarantees women the right to terminate any such life in our wombs, whether or not we put it there voluntarily.

What is different about a woman choosing not to have children and a homosexual man? (Obviously, I mean something other than our physical differences. :)

Are you then saying that any woman who chooses not to reproduce is also not living in a life affirming way?

That Rand was in fact not living in a life affirming way? As far as I know, she did not have children though of course, I have no idea if it was a choice or a fact of nature.

Ronin went on to write:

Objectivism has a lot to offer homosexual individuals- it guarantees your right to be what you are in your own home.

End quote.

I agree completely here. As I began to read about Objectivism, it occurred to me that Objectivism did have a lot to offer everyone and I was stunned to realize that Objectivists of a bygone era actually denounced homosexuals. LOL! My reasoning was and is that because reproduction is a choice, the choice not to have children 'freed up' everyone to have whatever kind of relationship they wanted .. including those that will not produce children for whatever reasons.

Most other belief systems argue that Man's natural state is one where women are relegated to bearing children as her DUTY. Objectivism was different in this regard and a cause for celebration that women had been elevated to creatures of choice. Objectivism declared for the first time that we are each free to do as we rationally wish, with no duty to nature or society to reproduce. Am I wrong?

Ronin also said:

But don't make the mistake of believing homosexuality has anything to offer objectivism. It doesn't. Neither does any other disorder, fetish, kink, or turn-on.

Sexuality (as a topic)is not part of philosophy, it is more a hybrid of psychology and phisiology, the rational study of which depends on a rational philosophy.

End quote.

I have to disagree in part here. It seems there is some dichotomy here that I'm not clear on. Sexuality is a core part of every human being on this planet, and yes, it includes psychology and physiology and most definitely depends on a basis of rationality.

The thing I'm seeing here though is that what is termed kink, disorder, fetish or even turn on is considered outside of philosophy per se? I don't see how that could be at all. I was under the impression that much of this debate about kinky sex and homosexuality was rooted in the morality of those choices? I.e.., some think it is immoral and others do not? Am I wrong as to the root of the argument? Morality is very much a part of philosophy .. isn't it?

What I find more interesting though, and this is where my own tangent comes in ...

While we would not morally denounce someone with a broken ankle, cancer, or hepatitis we do tend to morally denounce homosexuals, kinky people and the like.

We see physical ailments as okay, but not emotional ailments?

Now, before everyone gets on my case by seeing homosexuality as a disorder *grin*, I'm choosing this example to illustrate a point. Because Ronin has termed them a disorder or 'unnatural' I'm following that line of logic. However, I will be honest and state right up front that I tend to agree that homosexuality and even my favorite kinks are rooted in emotional damage that needs to be worked through BUT I also have come to believe that many expressions of homosexuality and kink are healthy. I do think human sexuality swings both ways, and that some forms of kinky sex are extremely exciting and wonderful. Which forms? LOL! Those that don't injure anyone involved. :)

So, if we assume that homosexuality and kink are disorders, why do we need to morally denounce them?

Why do people with physical afflictions get spared the moral condemnation? Because they have no control over their afflictions? That is arguable. Accidents can be prevented. Had I been more careful, I would not have broken my ankle so horribly. Maybe all that candy I ate as a youngster contributed to my having gestational diabetes for all my pregnancies? Am I to be morally denounced for that?

So what makes having an emotional ailment different from a physical ailment? Don't tell me we are still working on the mind and body dichotomy! LOL!

Now, I suspect Ronin was making a different kind of point, one I'm not really qualified to address. I'm not an academic Objectivist and it is my impression that the purpose of Chris' work is not to invert Objectivism or whatever, but to point out that choices are choices and should be respected as such.

If I were to follow Ronin's reasoning, I would have to morally denounce any woman that decided not to have children, I would have to morally denounce any one with an emotional or physical ailment .. but I'm not into denouncing such things.

I would rather spend my denouncing energy for those that deserve it ... our politicians, statists, collectivists and other such evil people. Personal choices are personal choices and the one thing I thought Objectivism celebrated was the idea of personal freedom and choice, along with responsibility!

Ronin concluded his comments:

Those who are homosexual, and objectivist, should be objective enough to state honestly "I am damaged, through no way of my own, possibly beyond repair, but I will live a life of reason."

end quote.

I have to say that I was surprised by this. Do you go around stating all the ways you may be damaged? Is it only a matter of degree then? Or just sexual orientation? I freely admit that I am damaged in many ways, and I often say so to illustrate a point relating to what I am writing. I was raised a mystic and it's hard baggage to overcome at times. But do I need to wear a glaring red letter 'D' on my chest and proclaim to the world that I am damaged? If everyone had to do that, we would all be wearing such red letters and what would be the point? I am not defined by my failings, nor should anyone else be. I respect other people enough to understand they might have whatever problems they have and that it is their business to work on them or not. Unless they infringe on my liberty, property rights, or happiness it really is none of my concern. :)

However, isn't living a life of reason life affirming??? LOL!

Joy :))

Post 54

Thursday, October 31, 2002 - 9:05am

Joy,

Just wanted to compliment you on one thing you caught onto: and that is that, yes, Ronin's position is more accurately described as "species affirming". To belabor the obvious, in Objectivist ethics, the primary beneficiary of a moral act is supposed to be the actor, not the human species. Species affirmation would be a form of collectivism.

Post 55

Thursday, October 31, 2002 - 10:46am

Joy,

Now that I've dispensed with my complimentary comment, I can proceed to something else entirely! :-o

You wrote:

However, I will be honest and state right up front that I tend to agree that homosexuality and even my favorite kinks are rooted in emotional damage that needs to be worked through...

Could you expand on this? I didn't intend to take you out of context, but I didn't see anything else you wrote which clearly modified this statement. Is this just based upon your personal experience, or a careful study of the available scientific evidence? AFAIK, your conclusion isn't warranted. It is, of course, one thing to claim that everyone you personally know had experienced some form of emotional damage, but quite another to claim that this is true of an entire segment of the population.

Post 56

Thursday, October 31, 2002 - 12:06pm

Oops! Sorry Kernon, the above that you quoted from my message is strictly based on my own experience and observations of people I've known on-line in the cyber world. *grin*

I keep forgetting that I have to put everything in a one shot deal here! LOL! I've so often mentioned my 'research' in other conversations that I forget that most here would not know of my illicit activities in the darker regions of the cyber (and real sometimes :) world. ;)

My own observations come from talking and 'listening' (ie., reading) to homosexuals, kinky folk, and others on various discussion groups devoted to sexuality of one kind or another. At most, I'd say that this comes from in depth conversations of perhaps 50 or 60 people, hardly representative of the entire population. *grin*

My own experience parallels that I've heard from others and I have drawn my own conclusions as it relates to myself and what I believe.

I've seen quite a bit of 'scientific' data but being married to a scientist makes me quite suspect of their conclusions either for or against my own conclusions, nebulous as they might be at this stage. In fact, if one were to integrate all the 'conclusions' out there so far, it would amount to a muddled mess because psychology is pretty much in the Dark Ages and people in various fields often don't know what questions to ask and if they did ask the right questions, there is still the issue of how well people know themselves to answer correctly. And then you have those people who would be afraid to answer correctly for a variety of reasons.

However, I do appreciate you pointing this out so that I could clear it up before starting something ugly here! LOL!

Thanks!

Joy :)

Post 57

Thursday, October 31, 2002 - 12:15pm

Actually, let me clarify some more as I suddenly get the impression that Kernon may have mistaken one point of mine:

I do not believe that homosexuality or kink is EXCLUSIVELY due to emotional or sexual abuse, this that or the other thing.

I do believe that a healthy sexuality can include same sex affection, sex, bonding, and yes, even kink. :)

There is such a deep continuum when it comes to what we are talking about here in regards to homosexuality and kink.

There is a world of difference between tying up your partner and blindfolding them for hours of exciting sex and literally living as a sex slave 24/7 with no regard for your own sense of worth.

There is a world of difference between a person hating/fearing the opposite sex in the extreme and a person that simply prefers the same gender or even both genders while being able to easily interact with people of either gender.

My conclusions about emotional damage and working through issues concerns the extremes of gender preference or kink. Just as I see emotional damage as the cause of those who over eat, over drink, and any number of other activities that are harmful either physically or emotionally.

Hope this clears that up. :)

Joy :)

Post 58

Thursday, October 31, 2002 - 2:22pm

Ed Ronin

Thanks for the intelligent reply. At least, now, I know you are honestly opposed, instead of just trying to smear the experience.

In regard to this question of yours:

"I have some questions though, are there any circumstances in which you would judge a heterosexual, who is repulsed by homosexuality, as anything other than a repressed homosexual?"

Here is the thing. First, you say lisping, queen types repulse you, and then you say "homosexuality" repulses you, which would include the whole experience.

Anyway, in answer to your question it has been my observation that healthy straight people with active sex lives, have a very live-and-let live attitude toward homosexuality, in so far as no one tries to intrude upon them.

Rather than be repulsed by it, they simply state that it is "not there thing." Or shrug their shoulders with indifference. Conversely, healthy homosexual types are enjoying their lives, and really are not concerned about heterosexuality.

As an Objectivist, I don't think one has to like homosexuality, but I think one has to accept that it is a lifestyle for many people who call themselves Objectivists.

Joy Bushnell alludes to homosexuality and kink repeatedly in her posts, but this is an expression of inexperience and lack of personal knowledge of the full homosexual world. In fact, as homosexuality moves out of the closet, more and more gay people appear who are living healthy and rational lives. (Kink inplies an unhealthy, non-intimate, non-romantic aspect. And yes, while homosexuality is rooted in a dark, underworld past, much of it extremely kinky, this is changing very rapidly.)

In conclusion, Ed there are repulsive parts of homosexuality just as there are repulsive parts of heterosexuality. Have you ever seen pictures of heterosexual men being mutiliated by a dominatrix, crawling on the floor, licking a toilet bowl?

I can't speak for gay people in general, but I know a lot of gay men who dislike the sissy, fairy type. I would say these types are a small percentage of gay people.

Finally, no I don't think because certain gay types repulse you, you are a repressed homosexual. One could say I was a heterosexual teenager, so I am not unfamiliar with the painful path of many males. In my opinion, and this is only my opinion, most heterosexual boys fear homosexuality because they are reluctant to confront it. If they confronted it, instead of making a monster out it, they would probably come out the other side, much more confident of their desire for girls.

Also, I don't see value judgements as the answer to many deep-rooted personality traits and lifestyles, especially homosexuality. But this is a very complex subject, best left for another time.

Thanks again for an intelligent reply.

Ari C.

Post 59

Thursday, October 31, 2002 - 2:33pm