RoR: Forum

I think this conversation is veering off course, and entering into areas of subjective feelings about sexuality. Or what is homosexuality or what isn't. Yet, in reality it is discussion of Chris Sciabarra's articles on homosexuality and Objectivism, and all the issues related to this, for example, why are so few gay Objectivists willing to announce themselves publically, or why have so many homosexuals been treated disrespectfully in the past?

I think Chris contributed tremendously to the advancement of Objectivism as a social entity by these articles, and he deserves to be respected not only as an individual but as an intellectual. In this sense, Ronin your cheap remark about him and Jon Galt is way out of line, and I know for myself, I will not respond to you anymore.

Personally, the only thing I think is important about individual Objectivists who are homosexual, is are they quality individuals who are guided by the basic fundamentals of Objectivism: people who are intelligent, productive, creative, and living a rational life.

If they are partnered with someone of the same-sex, that is their business, and they should be fully accepted as they are, without any reservations.

Although I don't speak for Chris, I think that would be one of the goals of his articles, a better understanding of gay Objectivists and acceptance of their lifestyles within the parameters of Objectivism.

As such I don't think homosexuality or heterosexuality offers anything to Objectivism, but individual people of both sides do, and will, and this is what is important.

Post 81

Sunday, November 3, 2002 - 8:25am

Hello there Myron,

I debated whether or not this was worth my time to answer, and finally decided that it was, even if it is off topic to this particular discussion.

"I imagine you are referring to me when you speak of that beautiful world out there when we refuse to be victims."

Yes, I was referring to you and to anyone one else that defines themselves by their suffering.

"Yes, I think it is a beautiful world when there are no straight women in it. I enjoy being a gay male a great deal. But unfortunately in this oppressive society I was forced to attend high school and suffer through the oppressive effects of a heterosexual culture, a culture that says a boy is nothing unless he has a girl, and is a good lover, able to please and satisfy her."

Well, in a bizarre sense I almost agree with you. Had there been no straight women around, you would not have been born to suffer what you have apparently suffered. You aren't unique in your suffering either. Perhaps if you would care to look around, there are many gays and non gays alike that have suffered for a variety of reasons. Religion, economic status, ethnic origins, physical deformities, mental deformities, gender, and the list goes on. Some people have suffered at the hands of others for no more reason than the misfortune of being born to abusive parents, drug addicts, mentally incompetents or in a war zone. Many of these people have overcome their abuse and don't try to use their suffering as some kind of badge of honor to gain special sympathy or consideration. Of course, many do and that is a sad fact.

"I wonder if you have an idea what it is like to grow up knowing your whole day is a lie, and that if you tell the truth, your whole world will collapse, and most everyone in it will reject you. In my senior year, when I did come out and tell everyone I was gay, I was beaten repeatedly in gym class, scorned and called fag by the popular girls, and rejected by my whole family, who refused to accept me. Teachers turned the other way when I was being mistreated and
when I struck back I was punished to the max."

And you blame me or other straight women for this? Was I one of the students that beat you up in gym class? Was I one of those teachers who punished you? Was I your mother you turned against you? Did not a single man/boy inflict suffering on you? You were completely traumatized by the women in your life? I find that hard to believe, yet you would blame all your problems on women? I find that line of reasoning difficult to follow.

In case you were unaware of the fact, many kids were beaten up in gym class, called names, rejected by family, and otherwise abused by 'society' for a great many more reasons than the choice of their sexuality. Surely you don't believe that only gay children were treated in this way?

"So Ms. Bushnell, your letter doesn't surprise me. It is just like a straight women to define others but her own experience, an experience of being pampered and treated preferentially."

LOL! Now this is humorous. Perhaps you missed your history lessons as you were getting beat up so often. Women didn't even get the right to vote until 1920! Owning property, running a business, or any other freedoms were non-existent for a very long time. Yes, perhaps women were pampered -- but it was the equivalent of being pampered chattel, not being pampered as a free woman with all the rights that men enjoyed for centuries and which were denied women throughout history.

"To be very frank, I have little respect for the intelligence of straight women, and their fairy tale views of the world. Maybe when you go out in the world, and make your way like many gay women with out the financial support of a man, your opinion will hold more weight."

LOL! Frankly, I don't care whom you respect or don't. But what makes you believe that you hold special knowledge of me to even make such a ridiculous assumption? You think only gay women go forth in the world to support themselves???

Just what fantasy world are YOU living in?!

I quite agree with Ari -- the original subject of this discussion of Chris's work is the topic here, not the various whining about suffering. Gays don't have the exclusive right of suffering, neither do blacks, women, Orientals or any other group anyone cares to define. The world isn't a fair or just place at times. Every single individual has suffered something of some nature by virtue of elements beyond their control. That is life. What Objectivism offers is a way to change that, to make the world a more rational place where the rights of individuals are respected above all else -- where individual choices are respected so long as they don't violate the rights of others. You Myron, are free to hold any belief you want. It doesn't matter to me what you believe and I fully support your right to believe anything you wish, live any lifestyle you wish.

That is what we are all here for.

Or at the very least, that is what I am here for.

Joy :)

Post 82

Sunday, November 3, 2002 - 11:04am

My my my my my ....my my my my my!

(That's a quote from Chris Sciabarra! Just to keep things in context Ari)LOL

Joy you queer basher:) I didn't know that you were the original source of all evil and human suffering. How original of you. How selfish of you to keep it all to yourself.

I think we should take Myron, dress him up in nasty drag and go to a straight Objectivist cocktail party. We could all learn a great deal from that experience. Of course straight-as-an-arrow Lindsay Perigo would have to be our gracious host.

Myron, again, and it bears repeating: I don't want to live in a world without females. Just keep chanting that to yourself as a mantra, it oughtta work. You are providing ample reason to believe why re-programming, at least a modicum of it, may have some virtue:) BTW Did you know that Ayn Rand was of the female persuasion? It's not Ian Rand, originally her name was Alissa Rosenbaum. SHE was an INTELLECTUAL! Oh, and my mom, she's getting a degree in philosophy at CUNY. Somehow my dad doesn't feel that her intellect diminshes his masculinity. Oh and my sister-in-law just passed the bar exam and she has a Phd in English (NYU). My sisters are both pretty sharp too. There is reason to believe that at least one woman possessed an acute intellect. Look around, get out more, you will see that the world is full of bright, successful, mature, happy females. What is more, you will learn that women generally like to be treated as individuals. Objectivist don't believe that language is encoded with a hidden political agenda. There is no great conspiracy against gay males. All actions against gay males can be traced back to individual agents operating on irrational premises. When you look at the forrest don't forget the trees that make it a forrest. Likewise, don't forget the forrest for the trees.

Oh, and Kernon, did your wife finally discover your comments here? Or are YOU your wife?:) HMMM!

Post 83

Sunday, November 3, 2002 - 12:20pm

Just a couple of random thoughts:

1. I'm rather astonished by some of the stuff I've seen on this thread---the words of Myron Ford among them. In fact, I'm most astonished that any person identifying themselves as a gay man would harbor that kind of animus toward straight women. What happened to all those anecdotal stories we've heard about gay men and straight women being compadres? Or all the stories we've heard about gay men (or men perceived as being gay) getting beat up... by straight men (or men perceived to be straight) ... in gym class? I must admit that the kinds of experiences described by Myron are outside the framework of testimonials I myself have heard through the years; all the more reason, Myron, not to make your own unique experiences a comment on a whole segment of the human population.

2. Getting back to the actual thread, I think it is important to note that this series was designed, partially, to give voice to self-identified Objectivists who would share their experiences concerning homosexuality's acceptance---or lack thereof---in Objectivist circles. By giving voice to these concerns, I had hoped that the series would rip open the closet door on this topic, and allow us to move the discourse forward---hopefully to a time when this topic becomes the non-issue it should be.

3. I do believe that any movement dedicated to freedom, individuality, and authenticity, has a lot to give to those claiming to adhere to its core principles, regardless of sexual orientation, and I second Ari's comments above.

I think it is also important to enter into a discussion that goes far beyond the Objectivist movement.

For another purpose of this series is to show how Rand has made a huge impact on gay men and women of many different walks of life. This cultural impact can be traced not simply on a gay adult film star. It can be traced in Rand's presence in the "Gay Russian Hall of Fame"; in her impact on the development of a central character in Showtime's "Queer as Folk" (referred to as the "love child of James Dean and Ayn Rand"); in her impact on a whole generation of so-called gay-right intellectuals, including David Boaz, Camille Paglia, Paul Varnell, Norah Vincent, Andrew Sullivan, and others, who routinely challenge "gay left orthodoxy." And I tried to highlight each of these in my series.

The point here is that Rand's legacy is, indeed, one that belongs to all rational men and women of whatever orientation, and that the time has come to hold that banner aloft proudly as we move toward a more general culture of individualism.

But in moving toward that culture, it is all the more important to affect our own sub-culture. Changing the world is paramount---but it is a task that can never be separated from changing ourselves---our attitudes---when that is necessary. Embracing more humane ways of dealing with difference should come naturally to those of us who are individualists, and who celebrate individualism as our credo.

Cheers,
Chris

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

Post 84

Sunday, November 3, 2002 - 5:07pm

Hi Everyone!

Anthony my love, didn't you know that I am indeed the original source of evil and human suffering? Even my husband calls me the 'pyschotic bitch from hell'. Most lovingly of course. *grin*

Ever since I became my own individual, I've just been accused of all kinds of things. LOL! Amazing how changing from a doormat to an individual will change your life.

But don't be too hard on Myron. Believe it or not, I used to be somewhat like that. Not hating any gender per se, but hating the world because of what 'it' did to me. *gasp* Yes, I know, who would have guessed. LOL! But that got old really quickly and I've been much happier these years just being me and putting all that behind me. Not repressing what happened, but putting it in a rational perspective. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, it was Objectivism that enabled me to take back my life and I hope that others find the same value in the 'Objectivist toolkit' -- and by that I mean using our minds, shunning the mystical, knowing that reality is real, that we are able to perceive it and that we are not powerless! Sad to say, I did kind of believe that fate had power over my life, that perhaps everyone but me was 'in the know' about life, and I felt as if I had zero control over anything! That is a bad place to be, believe me! Learning how to question what I come across, how to reason effectively, how to act on my beliefs and convictions has literally changed my life!

If you've suffered, don't let it have double impact by imprisioning yourself because of what happened. It's like deadly double coupon day for those that abuse -- they abuse you and hurt you and then you become unable to get past it and continue that hurt forever, losing out on what life has to offer.

Cut the abuse and the abuser short -- show them you can go on and flourish despite their evil actions! Show them that they can't get you down, that you're made of sterner stuff .. that you will take life by the horns because you have value, you have something to offer, because you are YOU and damn the abusers who will never amount to anything in the long run. They are losers and YOU can negate what they've done just by letting go of it and exceeding your own expectations.

That's all I'll say right now on that subject as it is rather off topic. ;)

I have to admit, every time now I see 'My my my my my my my .... my my my my my .. I just bust out laughing! I've never met Chris in person, but having seen his picture and gained a sense of him via his writing and personality on-line it just cracks me up. I can just picture it so perfectly!

Hopefully I'll have the pleasure of meeting him someday just to hear that in person. :)

Chris wrote:

The point here is that Rand's legacy is, indeed, one that belongs to all rational men and women of whatever orientation, and that the time has come to hold that banner aloft proudly as we move toward a more general culture of individualism.
End Quote.

Yes!!! Exactly! It is absolutely about being Individuals in every way! I didn't realize how hard it could be to really, really be an individual but it sure is worth it. It's a process, a journey and at times it is quite difficult .. but the rewards are incredible.

*grin* You too can become a 'psychopathic bitch from hell'. :) Or bastard if you're male I guess. LOL!

Okay, I'm joking there, but I have to tell you that the reason my husband teases me with that nickname is because while he's challenged me in so many areas, I've also challenged him -- especially as it relates to free thinking, validation, and just not blindly accepting what others take for granted.

In many ways I've turned his life upside by making him question EVERYTHING with an active mind .. then again, he's turned my life upside down in ways that are best left for another discussion. *grin*

But yes, I too look forward to the day when sexuality of any kind is not an issue, not swept under the carpet or treated in that sick way of avoidance a la Objectivism.

Recently on SOLO, someone (I want to say Michael?) posted a great analogy to describe that damaging sense of suspicion that arises when people refuse to name the truth. It was not a topic on sexuality, but is so perfect to describe what Linz and Chris are so actively fighting.

The poster described a scene from an Agatha Christie mystery. A maid was under suspicion of having stolen a broach from the lady of the house. However, rather than expressing their suspicion, or even asking questions, they simply assumed that she had needed it very desperately because of some family situation she happened to be going through. She was an old and trusted servant who had served faithfully for many years and so they chose to 'look the other way' because of her long years of service and her apparently dire circumstances. So, her status never really changed, she was not accused, but everyone began treating her slightly differently because of the suspicion they harbored.

Sadly, the maid died before any of this came to a head. Later it was discovered that the brooch had been stolen by the laundress.

That silent suspicion though must have been terrible to live with and I believe it is a similar feeling that gay Objectivists must feel when dealing with other Objectivists. It's in the air, but no one wants to address it. That dynamic is very devastating.

It shouldn't be an issue, yet because of Rand's words and those that believe her word was ultimate truth, we have that attitude among supposedly rational individuals who think for themselves. But all they've really done is to give a nod in the direction of individual choice and rights while kneeling before the altar of Rand.

I look forward to the day there are a great many more real individuals in the world! :)

Joy

Post 85

Sunday, November 3, 2002 - 5:29pm

Ms. Bushnell

I enjoy your positive New Age line of thought. I always find that this type of propaganda comes from people who have never suffered. I mean what happened to you in life? Were you beat up in gym class for being heterosexual? Did your father throw you out of the house for being a bimbo? Did your sister tell you would burn in hell? Did you sell yourself on the streets in order to live? Did you live with men in order to go to school? Have you ever lived alone in a big city with only yourself to help you survive?

Yes, very easy to be positive with Daddy and Mommy, and the whole family supporting you, and your community looking at you favorably.

And yes, you are right, straight males did beat me up, but anyone knows straight males in high school are completely dominated by girls, who manipulate them with their sexual wiles. Straight males hate homosexuals because they fear the contempt of girls, who would be helpless in the world without males to protect them and provide for them.

I know you think you are an individualist, and I would be unable to know something about you, but in reality you are women, and most women follow the herd, using the powers of sex and manipulation to win a man so they can live a risk free life. Ayn Rand was an exception, and there are exceptions. But let us remember Ayn Rand disliked most women, considered them inferior to men in regards to rationality, and much preferred the company of men.

I think Ms. Bushnell, what I am saying is touching something inside you, and you are trying to defend that doubt in writing. However, no matter how much you protest, you can not escape the fact that most women are Brittany Spears types, with one redeeming asset, their sexuality.

Although you never hear it because you are a women, most men have contempt for the intelligence of a women, consider them a poor choice to make a rational decision in an emergency, and really only want that "one thing" from you.

As a gay male, I have transcended that barrier. I live a fantastic life, free and without the burden of supporting children and a wife. I probably get more sex in a month than most heterosexual men get in a year, men who have to fawn and beg for sex from a women. Not only that, I have the support of a community, and don't have to face the terrible rejection and scorn so many heterosexual men face in the dating world.

So if you want to think I am a victim, please do. I know that I wake up a free man, and I don't have to answer to some nagging bitch so that I can laid once a week.

And Anthony. If you love women, good. By why so vociferous in your defense? Are you afraid they will think I am the homo norm?

Post 86

Sunday, November 3, 2002 - 6:03pm

Uh, folks, hasn't it occurred to any of you that this person is a troll?

Post 87

Sunday, November 3, 2002 - 6:43pm

Huh? Who? What? LOL!

Hi Olos,

He may indeed be a troll, but I never speak to trolls, my mother told me not to. *grin*

He and I aren't the only ones reading this forum and for the people out there that are silent, that are looking for rational answers, that just want to know, to understand, to look at things from a different perspective .. well, it's to them I write. These issues aren't unique, they affect everyone to some degree or another.

I don't expect to change anyone's mind about anything, but if someone does come across what I wrote and it happens to ring a little bell with them, if it helps them on the way on their own journey, my time will have been extremely well spent.

That's why I write, even if it seems I'm answering trolls. I don't believe trolls are even trolls per se .. I mean, these people are obviously searching for something (even if just attention) and while I can't address their needs I can address the issues they raise for others who might be more open minded.

So, I hope you don't mind if I keep answering. *grin*

Joy :))

Post 88

Sunday, November 3, 2002 - 6:50pm

Besides my dear Olos -- **I** have been accused of being a troll on this forum! *grin*

Believe it or not! LOL!

Now, if I can be mistaken for a troll, well then, what else is there to say?

*grin*

But then again, judging by the most recent post, I think I have to at least agree that maybe that poster does not understand basic principles of Objectivism, but that is hardly a capitol offense .. well, it isn't here. Maybe we should send him over to the 'dark side' of Objectivism .. you know, that evil military camp run by that tea guy .. what's his name .. Pekoe?

(Yeah, I know, a really cheap shot! But hey, I do have my limits! I'm not totally reformed!)

Joy :)

Post 89

Sunday, November 3, 2002 - 7:01pm

Ms. Bushnell,

The Oversight League on Objectivist Standards is in a bit of a tizzy � I meant conflict � on this one. While we are partly of the opinion that one is merely shadow boxing a ghost when engaging the mindless banter of a troll, a majority opinion holds that you are well within your rights to pursue such battles as you deem rationally in your self interest.

Post 90

Monday, November 4, 2002 - 3:28pm

Ms. Bushnell:

Accuse me of what you like, troll, anti-Objectivist, etc. Accusations are not answers, and now you seem to be running away from what you iniciated.

This is what I refer to with women. When the going gets rough, most straight women run for cover and protection, and hide behind their sexual privilege.

You iniciated this correspondence, and I responded. Now, you are unable to answer me so you resort to slurs and attacks. Is this an example of your ability and talent?

You are on a forum about homosexuality. Do you have any real experience in this subject, or are you relating what you hear from an internet forum?

Even more, why are you here? Do you have something to say about homosexuality and Sciabarra's articles? Or are you getting some vicarious thrill by associating with the homo crowd?

When push comes to shove, you bail out of the ship crying feminine privilege. If you want respect, why not prove it and earn it? I doubt you have the ability, but I am willing to be proved wrong.

Post 91

Monday, November 4, 2002 - 4:40pm

You see NOW Ms. Bushnell? It's so stupid it can't even keep track of who is responding to what and accuses YOU of bringing up "troll"! LOL!

Post 92

Monday, November 4, 2002 - 5:12pm

I'm not quite sure what you wanted me to answer Myron, you don't want answers from me as you don't respect women at all, nor do you treat them with even common courtesy. You insult me with every word and then pout and accuse me of not answering you? Why on earth would I? You are wrapped up in your own little version of reality and until you decide to open your eyes, you'll never see anything differently.

There was nothing in your post for me to answer.

Did you want me to 'prove' I've suffered as much as you? I don't deal in that kind of currency. If you want that, I'm sure there are enough television shows that deal in that kind of subject and you will find people that have really suffered. Enjoy it. I'm sure the shows are listed in some on-line guide.

My accusations are based on your last post in which you said:

Quoted of course:
I enjoy your positive New Age line of thought. I always find that this type of propaganda comes from people who have never suffered. I mean what happened to you in life? Were you beat up in gym class for being heterosexual? Did your father throw you out of the house for being a bimbo? Did your sister tell you would burn in hell? Did you sell yourself on the streets in order to live? Did you live with men in order to go to school? Have you ever lived alone in a big city with only yourself to help you survive?
End Quote.

I was supposed to answer what exactly? Your incredibly prying questions? For what purpose? You certainly don't have a right to these answers from me.

You whined on as if you had a clue:

Yes, very easy to be positive with Daddy and Mommy, and the whole family supporting you, and your community looking at you favorably.
End quote.

Actually, the entire post is there above ... read it and tell me what exactly you wanted me to answer before accusing me of running away, retreating to pampered and favored status. Myron, you have a very warped view of reality. You fail to even understand the words written here in basic English. How do you expect anyone to answer you when you won't look beyond your own misery?

But I had to quote one or two more things you wrote:

Although you never hear it because you are a women, most men have contempt for the intelligence of a women, consider them a poor choice to make a rational decision in an emergency, and really only want that "one thing" from you.
End quote.

Please Myron, don't judge all men by your own standards. Most men I know are not like that and if those are the only men you know, you might want to reconsider your lifestyle choices.

And I was relieved to hear you say:

As a gay male, I have transcended that barrier. I live a fantastic life, free and without the burden of supporting children and a wife. I probably get more sex in a month than most heterosexual men get in a year, men who have to fawn and beg for sex from a women. Not only that, I have the support of a community, and don't have to face the terrible rejection and scorn so many heterosexual men face in the dating world.
End quote.

I'm very happy for you Myron. You have found your little fantasy niche in life and that is a good thing. If having sex is all you seek in life, then I'm happy you've found it. Most I know don't define themselves by how much sex they get in a month, but I guess when there is nothing else in your life other than hatred and misery, sex makes a good pacifier.

You went on and whined in another post:

"You iniciated this correspondence, and I responded. Now, you are unable to answer me so you resort to slurs and attacks. Is this an example of your ability and talent?"

What have I said about my ability and talent? I was having a discussion with others about Chris's article. You have given me nothing at all to respond to except rudely worded requests for incredibly personal information. Where is your reason, objectivity or even courtesy?

You wrote:
"You are on a forum about homosexuality. Do you have any real experience in this subject, or are you relating what you hear from an internet forum?"

Myron, I'm truly sorry you have never learned to read. This is NOT a forum about homosexuality. It is a forum about Objectivism -- Chris's article dealt with how Objectivists deal with the issue of homosexuality. I already made clear in previous posts about my interest in homosexual issues as it relates to Objectivism. Surely you are not that dense? Why are you actively pretending that you have no idea what this forum is about or what I've written earlier. It's all there in black and white or whatever colors you have set your browser to.

And you whined some more:

"Even more, why are you here? Do you have something to say about homosexuality and Sciabarra's articles? Or are you getting some vicarious thrill by associating with the homo crowd?"

Myron, believe me, if I thought you were the norm in homosexual circles concerning Objectivism, I would forever give up Objectivism on that alone. I can not honestly believe that you have no idea where you are or what this forum is about!

You finally concluded with the most laughable statement:

"When push comes to shove, you bail out of the ship crying feminine privilege. If you want respect, why not prove it and earn it? I doubt you have the ability, but I am willing to b proved wrong."

Myron, I have nothing to prove to anyone here, and most especially I have nothing to prove to someone like you. I don't need to earn anything. You've made your views quite clear and I respect your right to shut out the world and live in your own fantasy world. But don't expect others to buy into it, most especially Objectivists who do make an effort to live in reality. Are you familiar with that term? REALITY.

This is my last post on the subject because it has been made abundantly clear, even to me who is normally quite forgiving and tolerant that you have no wish for discussion -- all you want is a whine fest so that you can prove you've suffered more by evil cruel women/straights/whoever and that you should have some special dispensation. You want someone to come and comfort you, protect you from the big bad world, save you from your own poisoning hatred. Why on earth you think I should prove anything to you or to anyone here is completely beyond me.

OLOS my dear, you were quite right when you first suggested this person was not interested in discussion. I will defer to your superior judgement in the future. *grin*

Well, you know I won't, but you did win this round. LOL!

Joy

Post 93

Monday, November 4, 2002 - 7:47pm

I am still very curious about a certain aspect of the series written by Chris, and that is the lack of public response by gay Objectivists.

I know Chris gave us some insight, but I wonder if others have thoughts on the subject? Surely, this is more important than what is going on right now on this forum.

Anthony, I would like to hear your thoughts on the subject. I mean how do gay Objectivists improve their lives if they won't go public with what they are? I think self-esteem is crucial here, and hiding oneself is counterproductive to self-esteem.

And to Joy Bushnell, why not put your efforts into a positive post rather than answer someone like him? He has his viewpoint, and no one will change it, so why try? Kind of like talking to Andrea Dworkin.

Post 94

Monday, November 4, 2002 - 8:11pm

LOL! Hi Ari,

I wasn't trying to change his mind, but even heterosexual women have to make their point once in a while! Perhaps my own baggage of being a victim makes it necessary for me to make myself perfectly clear and accept no abuse or foulness from anyone else. Besides, I'd written several positive posts that got negative replies so I thought I would try the reverse and see if a negative post got a positive reply. :)

But I quite agree, that isn't what we are here for and my apologies for trying to clarify a situation. As I mentioned with the Agatha Christie example, I don't like unspoken doubt of any kind lingering and festering. And I often write for all the people that actually never post ... just read and learn.

Joy

Post 95

Monday, November 4, 2002 - 10:53pm

Hi Ari and Joy,

First of all I feel rather embarassed because I personally encouraged Joy to share her thoughts here. She has consistently raised very pertinent questions and I consider her presence here a Joy:) I think furthermore, that Joy has defended herself admirably, especially in the face of such an incredible attack. Furthermore she has gone very far in proving her interest and showing benevolence where it was not her duty to involve herself. It is just another example of the general benevolence of SOLOHQ participants to go the extra mile. In my opinion Myron is a perfect example of how repression can have such a negative and detrimental effect on a developing mind. I am personally moved by the expressions of anger and sadness, and think that these must have some deep root, I wish Myron well. I do not think that one should dwell on anger though, it has a very destructive effect. Certainly you can use your mind to make your life happy and successful.

I do not think that it is necessary to hold on to negative experiences. many people have suffered incredible pain in their lives and gays certainly have no monopoly on suffering. I have done a lot of research on gay issues and I have encountered this central problem continuously arising in the literature and culture of gay males. I speak of suffering and the negative life destroying force. I have also seen hatred against females as an issue among many gay males as well as lesbians who hate or distrust straight males. All of this is a dreadful boring waste of time.

I share Dr. Sciabarra's point of view though. I believe that gay males and straight females have historically fought similar battles against rigid social codes. I also agree that we have been compadres all along the way. All the more reason to have Joy here joining the fray.

Moving back into the specific parameters of philosophy however, I see that the social.cultural problems have indeed a common root in mistaken philosophical premises.

I do not mean that homosexuality or heterosexuality is rooted in poor logic. The existence of individuals as I stated in a post above, is largely a metaphysical issue. If you embrace metaphysical pluralism as Ayn Rand did, you might see that there are many ways in which entities may be said to exist. Why they exist should not be the question that concerns us. What we want to know is how entities exist, what are their defining qualities, and what are the aspects that make them be what they are, operate as they do, etc. In this context we are talking about establishing an identity or a set of defining atrributes that make the members of a group similar to one another. Why do we call certain people gay and others straight? Some are of the opinion that this question is trivial and unimportant. Others tend to fall on either side of the issue, never affirming either. In order to answer you question Ari, which I think is the crux of the matter, we have to know if there really is any such thing as a gay identity in reality. Ari wants to know how do gay Objectivists improve their lives if they won't go public with what they are? In order to go public I think you have to assume that there is something to go public about. Right? There is indeed something very life-affirming about knowing that you can share your life with your friends, be open, etc. One of the options that use to arise among Objectivists was the idea of re-programming, becoming straight. In my case that is not an option.

I personally think that gay Objectivists can use Objectivism to form an identity within the movement. One would have to side with the moderate realist position in order to keep the philosophy consistent. The problem is that since no Objectivist has worked consistently in this area, there is a lot of confusion and Objectivists tend to take sides with whatever level they feel comfortable with personally. Others brush it off completely and say that it is not an issue at all. I am not concerned with diehard Objectivists who will never change. I am more concerned with those gay males and lesbians who identify with Objectivism as a philosophy but who have also embraced a gay identity (at whatever level they feel comfortable). This is the group that you seem interested in as well Ari. Since Objectivism is a philosophy and philosophy deals with identity, I don't see why homosexuality cannot be rationally discussed.

The moderate realist position (that position Andrew Sullivan defends) is called "essentialism" and it holds strongly to the concept of identity. In this case the gay identity does indeed exist in an objective reality. The opposition to this is called "social constructionism". Social constructionism holds the nominalist position that society creates identities and we merely adopt them and adapt to them in some arbitrary selective process. Just so you don't think I am making this up, you can do a Google search with the words and see what you get. I think Ayn Rand herself slipped into this latter position when she decided to make homosexuality the product of WHIM instead of reality. For her, homosexuality became a moral problem. It is my opinion that she focused on gay liberationists and Communists since the more vocal gays at the time were affiliated with leftist groups.

I think that one of the more intelligent observations I read in Ed's posts above mentioned "sexual collectivism". I think that Ed showed quite a bit of sexual collectivism in his posts by condemning a group of people, gays. In fact the epistemological point I was making about identity is that its opponents have to accept that it exists in the act of denying it. Ed's problem is not denying homosexuality, but in opposing it, not on rational grounds, but from biological argumentation. Sexual collectivism is very much what makes Queer theory operate. Queer theorists tend to conflate the epistemological with the political and thus understand social issues as arising from group warfare. They explain it as binary operations heterosexual/ homosexual, male/female, good/bad, etc. Those who prefer a linguistic bent tend to view language itself as encoded with a hidden agenda built in over the centuries to diminish women and males who have feminine traits. Many feminists and queer theorists still hold rigidly to the belief that "patriarchy" is a common enemy, not realizing the futility of embracing matriarchy as an alternative. Coming from a philosophical perspective I am more prone to understand the problem as epistemological. I am not saying that there are no political issues at stake here. That would be naive. I am saying however, that there is a common element that can be detected in individuals who embrace irrational premises and proceed directly into political explanations. If we don't get the identity problem right, we probably won't get ethical or political problems right either. ***Here I'll add my usual disclaimer that I don't profess absolute knowledge about these issues***

Obviously forums like SOLOHQ provide ample space for individuals to come out. One of the wonderful things about SOLOHQ is that our participants are not all gay, indeed some are armor-plated diehard heterosexuals who don't feel at all diminished by the fact that some of us are coming out on a 24hour 7day basis:)

Post 96

Tuesday, November 5, 2002 - 10:00am

Ms. Bushnell

You weren't even on this forum when I wrote my first post. I was talking generally about my feelings and about women. I had no consciousness of you whatsoever.

You somehow personalized MY THOUGHTS AND FEELINGS and took it as an attack against you. Really, if the shoe doesn't fit don't wear it. It is your own feelings within yourself you are responding to. All I am doing is relating my feelings and my perspective of the world. I only personalized my responses after you start addressing your posts to me, and offering your uninformed opinion of my life. You had no right to patronize me with your victimization line.

And to Anthony also. You are much the same way with your soft apologies. You seem to be versed in philosophy but yet you lack the ability to see past your own experience, and know that my life has been different. Yet, I get up in the morning and live a productive life to the best of my ability, so I really don't need your unctious pity, nor your guilty apologies for what I am saying.

Post 97

Tuesday, November 5, 2002 - 10:09am

One other thing about Ms. Bushnell. As with other people always preaching the positive approach to life, she doesn't seem to want to know about the dark side. They just don't want to know about it. And don't want to hear about it. Possibly, because it hasn't happened to them, and to focus on it, would very possibly be a threat to their defence system. They don't want to know about those crippled by hatred, prejudice, and violence. Don't be a victim they cry. Yet, it always seems to me the people who haven't suffered, are the ones doing the preaching.

If someone like Matthew Shepard had he lived through his terrible, terrible trauma said the same thing I would be ready and eager to listen.

Post 98

Tuesday, November 5, 2002 - 12:10pm

Dear Myron,

Please learn to read and comprehend the written word before opening your mouth and showing the world what a foolish fellow you are.

Your first post to this forum was nothing but an insult to another poster, and every post since then has been strewn with insults and innuendo. You have yet to contribute a single positive thought to this discussion.

It is one thing to listen to the events of a persons life. However it is something completely different to lay there and wallow in self-pity with every word and action. And you, sir, get a medal for wallowing. You have perfected it to a high art. I applaude you for your accomplishment.

You wallow, in your anger and pain and the past. You are seeking some sort of status as being a suffering gay male. GET OVER IT. You suffered, I suffered, we all suffered at different times in our lives. You do not have the monopoly on suffering.

The topic at hand is the flaw in objectivism regarding homosexuality, and how can we change that perception. What actions are needed to help foster an acceptance?

So, if you want to suffer, go do it and leave us out of it. Those of us who want a positive, rational world will continue to work for it, while those like you will continue to attempt to drag it down to the lowest common denominator.

To conclude, I leave you with this:

To quote from the LoTR

Frodo: I wish none of this had ever happened.

Gandalf: So do all who live to see such times, but it is not for us to decide. All that is for you to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you.

End Quote

Kevin

Post 99

Tuesday, November 5, 2002 - 2:20pm