RoR: Forum

ps, Lord of The Rings RULES!

Post 101

Tuesday, November 5, 2002 - 5:25pm

Kevin W.

You post is just another illustration of a frustrated, inarticulate fellow traveler, without the ability to put forth something in his own words. Another positive type who can't face the dark side of life, and wants to do away with someone who has. Get over it, you say. But have you gotten over your traumas, your deep resentments, your terrible rejections, or are you just reacting strongly to mine?

And Ms. Bushnell, as I said before, I only personalized my response when you patronized me with your post. I never referred to you specifically in this way. If you are a capable, intelligent women, I salute you but that doesn't chance my view of women. Surely, there are good straight women, but they are the exception by far.

Alright, Kevin W. so you want to talk about Objectivism and homosexuality. Let's talk. I think Rand's fiction is filled with homoerotic examples, and I think her writings encourage homosexuality amongst men. Her males figures are unreachable supermen, and many males feel inadequate under this spotlight. They feel unworthy of women, or they feel guilty for chasing after a whore, or they endulge in celebacy. Guilt and sexual deprivation. Ever wonder why there are so many gay priests? Ever wonder why there are so many gay Objectivist men?

I think Jon Galt exemplifies Objectivism, a strong, muscular male living without a woman. Almost all the men in Rand's literature are women-less. This is obvious. And Rand herself often expressed contempt for the majority of women. What was that quote of hers when asked if she wanted to be a man. A big no, because then she would have to love a WOMEN.

Her literature bursts with homosociality. In fact it is a monument to homosociality.

Post 102

Wednesday, November 6, 2002 - 4:11pm

Myron

The thing about most Objectivists is they can't think outside their parameters. Take them outside the world of Ayn Rand and they are paralyzed. Now, you assert that Objectivism encourages homosexuality, and is a monument to homosexuality.

I believe you have a point but these dolt-minded followers will never discuss it. Too frightening, to bold, too different. They are just more middle class conservative types accustomed to their privileged world. I think they know little about the real world, the suffering of many people, and lives many people face.

While I don't agree with you on women, you have made some interesting points. Certainly Ayn Rand had a strong bias in favor of men, and seemed to dislike most women.

Post 103

Wednesday, November 6, 2002 - 9:07pm

Interesting that you claim that once most Objectivists are taken "outside the world of Ayn Rand ... they are paralyzed" and in the same breath assert that Ayn Rand "seemed to dislike women." Surely then, most Objectivists would favor Myron Ford's view.

I think we can dismiss Ford's arbitrary misogyny. Notwithstanding his own unfortunate, albeit limited experience, it's groundless, it's baseless, it's not convincing. They're not "interesting points" at all.

The thing that does concern me about the turn of this thread is the idea that Objectivism is compatible with Ford's bleak world view - wallowing in the "dark side of life" and focusing on "trauma," "resentment" and "rejection." It's not. While these occurrences exist and we recognize that and we don't evade them, we certainly shouldn't focus on them. They�re not, as Adam pointed out, the norm. If they were, a rational philosophy would be of no use as Objectivism rests on the context of an objective, benevolent reality.

I'm not sure if I'm qualified to comment, as I've never been violated or otherwise abused, but note Ford and Barbella's implicit polylogism: that exposure to suffering and trauma reveal a reality unknowable to those of us that are merely rational. No, Ford's ideas aren't frightening or different. It's the same tired old nihilism in a different guise.

I've never been able to understand how so many people manage to grasp Objectivist politics and (to some extent) ethics, metaphysics and epistemology, yet fail to make the connection to esthetics and sense of life.

G.

Post 104

Thursday, November 7, 2002 - 9:58am

Glenn: "I think we can dismiss Ford's arbitrary misogyny. Notwithstanding his own unfortunate, albeit limited experience, it's groundless, it's baseless, it's not convincing. They're not "interesting points" at all."

This is your subjective view, totally based from within your own experience. You very well may be correct, but you offer no evidence, no facts, no concrete visions of your view. What you offer is your personal distaste for his view, nothing more.

Also, I think the fact that Ayn Rand favored men over women, and expressed dislike and contempt for average women is something many people have commented on, including Chris Sciabarra. However, you conclusion that most Objectivists would favor Ford's view is again your opinion without evidence.

My view is you abhor what he is saying, but don't possess the ammunition to counter him. Yes, his view of women is distorted, but in other areas he has expressed a positive view of life. He says he is happy, enjoys sex, and seems to be able to articulate his position much better than the people who are opposing him. I think it is you and a few others who are labeling him as the Prince of Darkness but I don't agree. He says he loves Jon Galt, he says he loves men, and he says he doesn't like straight women. And he wants to live on an island with all men.

While it may not be our view of the world, I don't see it as negative position. In fact, if he has suffered the trauma he describes, I would take my hat off to him, and say he is doing much better than a lot of people I know.

As for you, what proof do I have besides your words that your sense of life is superior to Ford's? Many Objectivists simulate and pay lip service toward a heroic life, but in reality stay safely within the circle. You have expressed a superior attitude but what else to you have to show us?

Post 105

Thursday, November 7, 2002 - 5:30pm

Myron

I am glad someone like Sal Barbella is taking your side. I have been reading the posts and I can see the way they are trying to demonize you. I think they are afraid of what you are saying and want to dismiss you. I think you are saying a lot of things Chris Sciabarra talked about out in his articles. But I doubt anyone will address that.

I think it is obvious Rand devalued women, and expressed hostility to them on more than one occasion. I mean what does it mean when one says I don't want to be a man because then I would have to love a women.

I suffered a great deal of abuse also, and my mother disowned me when she found out her daughter was a lesbian. But I am surviving and living happily and you seem to be doing it too. So don't let some of these cold hearted, polylogistic snobbish types bother you. You have some friends.

Post 106

Saturday, November 9, 2002 - 1:11am

My last post on this thread. I'm running out of troll-bait.

Sal Barbella writes:

"This is your subjective view, totally based from within your own experience ... you offer no evidence, no facts, no concrete visions of your view. What you offer is your personal distaste for his view, nothing more."

Well, this is YOUR subjective view... nya, nya, nya.

Your argument above is essentially my argument against Ford's. HE has offered "no evidence, no facts, no concrete[s]" in favor of his misogyny. That's what I was referring to with my �it�s not convincing� comments. I would have thought that was clear.

I don�t think this is the forum for me to validate that (straight?) women are �cruel creatures, heartless and unforgiving,� �bitches,� implicitly cowardly and whatever else Ford has accused them of. It�s unfortunate that you think this validation is necessary.

While Ayn Rand might have expressed a preference for men over women, I don�t accept that she �expressed dislike and contempt for the average woman.� Her female friendships and admiration for her sister Nora are well documented.

It is NOT my opinion that �most Objectivists would share Ford�s view.� That was my attempt to reconcile YOUR comments that (1) most Objectivists are �paralyzed� once taken �outside the world of Ayn Rand� with (2) her supposed dislike of women. I hold that ALL these ideas are false. Since spelling out seems necessary, I do NOT think most Objectivists share Ford�s view, I do NOT think most Objectivists are paralyzed once take outside the world of Ayn Rand, I do NOT think Ayn Rand dislike most women.

What do I offer that my sense of life is superior to Ford�s? I am implying from Ford�s comments that he places value on the disvalues of the �dark side of life� characterized by �hatred,� �prejudice� and �violence.� These are incompatible with the concept of a benevolent universe where such occurrences are considered metaphysically insignificant. Again, I don�t think this is the forum to validate something as fundamental as the benevolent universe premise. If you�re unfamiliar with it, look it up on www.importanceofphilosophy.com or in other Objectivist literature (e.g. OPAR p. 342-343.) Then come back to ME with some �ammunition.�

And Olivia, it astounds me that you�re defending someone whose last public reference to you was as �just another bossy c... trying to get her way. Even she admits she is bitch, as are all women, straight or lesbian.�

G.

Post 107

Saturday, November 9, 2002 - 1:21am

Of course, my 6th paragraph should read:

I don�t think this is the forum for me to validate that (straight?) women are NOT �cruel creatures, heartless and unforgiving,� �bitches,� implicitly cowardly and whatever else Ford has accused them of. It�s unfortunate that you think this validation is necessary.

Yikes! That was close!

Post 108

Saturday, November 9, 2002 - 1:00pm

Glenn said:

"And Olivia, it astounds me that you�re defending someone whose last public reference to you was as �just another bossy c... trying to get her way. Even she admits she is bitch, as are all women, straight or lesbian."

I think a lot of things would astound you, if you took the time to understand the world, instead of defending against it with your knowledge of philosophy, which seems to blind you to a big part of the world. All I am seeing in your post is another carbon copy Objectivist spouting dogma, absent of experience.

You don't listen to what others say, you attack using philosophy.

Myron offered his view of life. He is not trying to convert you. Why can't you just let him be? Is it that what he says threatens you?

What he says doesn't threaten me. I understand him. But then I am psychologically oriented, have a heart, and often can see beyond the words into the personalities of people who have been bruised by the world.

Post 109

Saturday, November 9, 2002 - 1:31pm

Is this your profile Glenn?

.........Glenn works for a hi-tech company in Miami, Florida and has a business card without a title. While attending university in New Zealand, he was one of the first students to publicly speak out in favor of voluntary membership of student unions at the University of Auckland. His philosophic interests lie in the field of the Objectivist ethics, particularly in the elevation of benevolence as a virtue - he has no time for malevolence or ugliness. His goal is to lead a "stylized life," where exotic locations, beautiful women, fine food and liquor, romance and reason are the norm. So far, he's pretty happy with the results..............

So you don't have time for malevolence or ugliness. And you like those beautiful women, eh Glenn, and that fine food and liquor.

So good for you, but what are you doing on a forum dedicated to Objectivism and homosexuality?

If you want to live in a pure world devoid of ugliness, better avoid gay people because so many have experienced ugliness and malevolence.

I love that statement that you don't have time for malevolence or ugliness. So what do you when your stepfather is raping you? Tell him you don't have time for this?

I think what you are saying, is you don't want to hear about malevolence and ugliness because you life is free of it. So then why, come to this forum and invade and dishonor the experience of others?

Is it that you think male homosexuality is part of that ugly and malevolent universe?

Post 110

Saturday, November 9, 2002 - 4:01pm

Again, why in hell's hot flames are you talking to a trollette Glenn?:) My idea for this message is taken from Classical Greek
mythology. The story of the Greek hero Perseus (thank you Matthew G., HA) who set out on a death mission to capture the head of Medusa from the three headed Gorgon. Bellerophon accomplished his mission and was rewarded with
the hand of a beautiful bride (Andromeda). His noble attempt was aided by the Goddess of REASON and protectoress of heroes, Athena.
But a trollette Glenn? Why go for a trollette like Olivia when you could have the head of the Medusa in your bag?:)

Witness Olivia's attacks. Are they not loathsome? She uses pieces of your bio to show you that you are contradicting yourself. This is a variant of ad hominem argumentation, an attack on the person rather than an appeal to his arguments. She did this with Chris and was shot down the
chute. But she is a healthy cockroach and has crawled back up out of the sewer to scurry around in the dark again. I agree with Uncle
Linz, that the root of the problem is scepticism, the kind of philosophy that postmodernism embraces. Olivia has stated that BECAUSE Myron has suffered abuses, and some lesbian was raped by her stepfather, there is no possibility of maintaining an objective approach to moral issues, including gay issues. I conclude that this is an attack on my position in a prior post as well. I attempted to explain that we cannot infer that because some gays are morally
depraved, ALL gays are depraved. To center our knowledge of these issues in suffering is no sound basis for an argument that has as its aim, the promotion of homosexuality in Objectivism.

What is happening in the diminishing discussion is what I call "philosophie dans l'escalier" ("philosophy in the staircase")
What I mean by that, is the ignoble attempt to refute someone's arguments on the way out the door (going down the staircase). It is
not philosophy, it is a last ditch attempt to refute an argument by hurling an insult while taking the escape route. Clear?

I think that all of us can take a lesson from this for the future. I don't mean to reprimand you Glenn, but I think your heroic efforts to
defend women, a benevolent universe, and positive affirming sense of life are/were being wasted on a trollette:) Therefore I COMPEL YOU not to take
up this mission lest Athena question your heroic nature! I have counseled with Senator Lindsicus Perigus Maximus, and we hereby decree that all heroic Gladiators should report to the SOLO forum in Rome. Diana and her vestal virgins await your arrival. Well, more or less. LOL!

Yours for good causes, Hermes

Post 111

Saturday, November 9, 2002 - 4:17pm

I think that many of us are on the SOLOHQ forum because we are, as the SOLO credo says "at war with the current culture: the culture of anti-heroes, nihilism, destruction & dishonesty." We are trying to live rational and passionate lives, and we come to this forum to take part in life-affirming conversation with our peers. I recognize that this may not be the goal of every participant, but generally speaking, it is the purpose of *the forum*; so it should come as no surprise that Glenn has no time for ugliness and malevolence in his life. Neither do I.

Post 112

Saturday, November 9, 2002 - 4:51pm

I disagree with a number of things said on both side of this discussion, but... I'm more interested in knowing how this board is a "forum dedicated to homosexuality" ;)

Post 113

Saturday, November 9, 2002 - 8:53pm

Olivia, when did SOLO become a forum dedicated equally to homosexuality and Objectivism? Speaking as one who made your mistake, I suppose I should take your advice and avoid your kind; I gain little from dealing with people who have let their pain define them. On the other hand, I think that something has to be said about your appropriating a mantle of virtue for yourself because you faced abuse.

I don't think that Glenn denies the existence of ugliness and malevolence; I think that he knows better than to evade reality in such a manner. However, he is unwilling to grant significance to evil. Why treat the antics of cockroaches with respect, Olivia? Why let the abuses of others define you? Are you that weak a person that you have to find your identity through others?

Post 114

Sunday, November 10, 2002 - 1:48am

Obviously enough, I would hope, SOLO is not a forum dedicated equally to Objectivism & homosexuality. Rather, one - JUST one - of SOLO's purposes, as stated in the Credo, has been to drag Objectivist homophobia out of the closet. Mission accomplished. We've done it, well & truly. Time to move on. There are many other things SOLO is concerned with. Changing the entire Objectivist culture, not just its homophobic aspect, is one of them. Changing it from the mindless, malevolent, evil ARI-type religiosity diplayed here by certain trolls is part of that. And so it shall be. Vinceremo!

Post 115

Sunday, November 10, 2002 - 7:24pm

This thread is labeled as Homosexuality and Objectivism, article five by Chris Sciabarra.

This is the thread I am posting on.

So far I have not heard one of you in the Glen crowd address the subject, or even talk about your experience.

Hermes the Messenger lacks the courage to even state his name but he snipes at me like a little coward, and mislabels what I am saying to his own end. You are nothing but a contemptible little fairy, a gutless little dork that is probably still living with his mommy.

As for the rest of you little fairies like Glenn who lives in a dream world, trying walking down Biscayne Boulevard at night to test your theory of a benevolent universe.

What a bunch of pussywhipped little fairies!

Post 116

Sunday, November 10, 2002 - 7:37pm

Actually, I don't believe in the "benevolent universe" premise, but even those who do would say that it's not about people in particular.

But of course you would know much about nasty people, now would you.

Oh, how I kid.

Post 117

Sunday, November 10, 2002 - 7:55pm

If the issue that you're wanting to address is the question of whether homosexuality is part of a malevolent universe then this is the issue I'll address.

I believe that homosexuality/bisexuality is not always a choice due to many contributing genetic and physiological factors. If something of this nature happens not by choice, then it cannot be thought of as a moral choice. Given that it is not always easy to live with one's sexual orientation, I do believe that it is imperative to one's happiness that they do just that. Sexual orientation (hetero, homo, or bi) cannot be thought of as being malevolent or benevolent. It simply is.

If the issue is concerning Glenn's alleged evastion of issues concerning malevolence (in terms of homosexuality or otherwise) then this is my reply. I am aware that there are many in the world who do not understand the issues of homosexuality, and therefore will act out of ignorance, fear, and hatred. I've experienced such as an atheist. The point I am trying to make--and I think this is Glenn's point as well--is that even though there is malevolence in the world and it's existence cannot be denied, it is not what life is about. One can lead a positive and productive, happy life while being aware of evil. In fact, knowing what evil is and how it works is half the battle in learning to fufill the irreplaceable value that is your life.

If neither of these replies adresses the issue, then I will ask for clarification on what the issue at hand is.

Post 118

Sunday, November 10, 2002 - 11:17pm

THE TRUTH ABOUT AYN RAND AND GAY PORN STARS

The people getting all upset over the fact that there is a Jo[h]n Galt porn star who reads Ayn Rand...as if that were some kind of betrayal of Objectivism or opposition to Objectivism or to the Randian spirit...are just plain out-to-lunch. They are so caught up in the mythological Ayn Rand that they miss the _real_ Ayn Rand, the _historical_ Ayn Rand. Rand the _man_-worshiper. (Underscoring _man_.)

Many people do not realize that despite some caveats, Rand herself was a great fan of gay porn movies and of homosexual love.

"Zis is ze ideal," she would say. "Ze man luffing ze man--can zere be any more intense and idealistic, thoroughgoingkh form of ze man vorship? Nyet! You get ze double man quotient in the single psycho-epistemological, sense-of-life nexus. I vould hate to be a man and haff to tool around mit a boring woman all ze time."

We are lucky to have transcriptions of the metaphysical-sex seminars Rand which conducted at some time in the early 1970s, and which have just been released (albeit in somewhat bowdlerized form) by The Ayn Rand Institute.

In these transcripts, Rand notes that, "Ze clash and union of man wid ze man, sexually, is de most dramatic form of value conflict and, ultimately, of ze romantic conquest and ze surrender--but not a literal surrender! For no man can truly surrender qua man. Zat is why zey all have ze cocks--de moral-metaphysical equivalent of ze warrior's sword."

On the issue of transvestites and the like, Rand makes the following observations:

"If a man dresses up like a women, yes of course, zat is disgusting--especially if zey follow de social-metaphysical value of going only by ze latest fad. I would not concede zat a man should dress up as a woman in anyzink but maybe Adrian or ze Gap. Are you going to tell me zat a man looks good in de pantyhose?...well, maybe _zum_ of zem do. I will give you zat. Ze ones mit de nicely-shaped legs."

Despite some stern reservations--reservations that exemplified her more moralistic side--Rand was not totally opposed to orgies, either. And she was more forgiving of all-male orgies than of all-female orgies.

"An orgy is de metaphysical horror--it constitutes ze de-peopling of ze sex act by merging ze sovereign individual mit de mob. It is de collectivizing of ze orgasm and everything which it presupposes, subsumes and implies. You cannot get off zat way--not truly and objectively. And it is a consciousness-fragmenting experience. You never know what to grab or, for zat matter, what is grabbing _you_. It is nothing but cocks and bozoms flying around everywhere in a Kandinsky-like tangle. Everyzing becomes ze Heraclitean fucks.

"If you have ze all-male orgy, zat is better zan ze all-female orgy, but still metaphysically disgusting and an affront to all de cosmic order. Observe zat no person can engage in ze orgies unless he drops his minds and his premises. De only exception is when everyone in ze group is _very_ cute. And I just zink, zat is a very tall order to meet given ze rotten culture dat we haff today."

Could John Galt ever be a male porn star?

"If he were objective about it, and he treated it as a profession, radder zan zum kind of semi-serious lark or hobby. Alzo, his equipment must match his ambition. Dat would be true of any porn star."

# #

Post 119

Monday, November 11, 2002 - 1:53am