[an error occurred while processing this directive]
About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page


Post 20

Friday, October 21, 2005 - 2:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Kevin,

I like your Freudian theory on the matter. You do mention Jung who extended psychoanalysis beyond Freud, but I'd argue that your theory is straight out of Freud (and not supported by anything other than Freud). Freud, Freud, Freud, Freud, Freud.

I don't think this theory is as correct as my evolutionary theory. You mentioned oversized mammary glands. Evolution theory explains this better than you did: more milk means more chance that offspring survive. Granted, I really ought to have double-checked this assumption: "larger glands = more milk" but I'm short on time (and wanted to respond now).

Now, in denying your theory (as something as explanatory as mine), I'm not denying performance anxiety -- it exists. Yet here again, and using point 1 from my theory: a sexually-responsive and already-getting-pleasured female -- 2 of them, actually -- would've served to lower the male pressure to perform. Whatever performance anxiety exists, is overcome within the context, without reference to PTSD (potty training stress disorder).

In short, there isn't a requirement to posit Freudian infantile hang-ups in explaining this aspect of reality.

Ed





Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 21

Friday, October 21, 2005 - 2:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
In short, there isn't a requirement to posit Freudian infantile hang-ups in explaining this aspect of reality
 
Agree. Stretchy at best. And, I don't think, er, mammarian protruberances (as Frank Zappa once described them) are the primary driver.

The taboo nature might be one driver. Or, it could be that we just think it's very hot looking. Men tend to be pretty visually oriented in these matters, do they not?

rde
Started getting dirtied up around 1965 when he saw the J. Mansfield Playboy spread and thought heaven had dropped down on him.




Post 22

Friday, October 21, 2005 - 3:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Those who give the most milk tend to have small boobs...



Post 23

Friday, October 21, 2005 - 3:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
As Pete pointed out before, Lesbos is merely a place where we might have a chance of getting two(or more) women in bed with us at once.



Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 24

Friday, October 21, 2005 - 4:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
JODY, ET. AL:

Some interesting feedback I got in an e-mail to the newspaper:

"I figure you will probably receive at least 20 complaints about your column, 1/2 from the militant Christian types angry that you mentioned anything gay, and 1/2 from the militant lesbo types angry that you said the women could be a fake lesbian. I just wanted to make sure you got some feedback from the 2 girl, 1 guy crowd to balance out the other hate letters."
-- Very truly yours in the glorious pursuit of the dream of 2 girls at the same time,
Dick Leakin




Post 25

Friday, October 21, 2005 - 6:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joe:

"That's if you're assuming she's a lipstick lesbian from a porn video and not a butch lesbian wearing boots and flannel listening to Melissa Etheridge and could tackle you in football and has armpit hair..."

Exactly. When men think lesbian they've got something in mind like Desperate Housewives meets Best of Muff Divers #3.

And while that ilk of lesbian surely does exist there's also the militant crewcut & boiler-suit type as well -- chicks with [metaphorical] dicks. [deep voice] "Howdy, my name's Rhonda and this is my girlfriend Chuck-ita. Wanna arm wrestle?"

Or something like that :-)

Ross





Post 26

Friday, October 21, 2005 - 6:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
And while that ilk of lesbian surely does exist there's also the militant crewcut & boiler-suit type as well --

Yes, but no one wants two(or more) of those girls in the bed with them, otherwise why bother being hetero.  Lip-stick lesbians exists damn it!  And hopefully they are bi-sexual.




Post 27

Friday, October 21, 2005 - 8:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
James,

LOLOLOLOL...

Rich got my banter drift and you didn't. I presume that your friend was moving in with a lesbian human and not a lesbian dog or cat or something...

Michael




Post 28

Friday, October 21, 2005 - 8:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
     Any interest a heterosexual male would have in a 'lesbian' necessarily requires the assumption that the 'lez' is bi-sexual...and...still has her girl-friend, who's also bi-sexual. (Can one say 'menage-a-trois'?) Else, what matter if the female is 'lez' or not?

      O-t-other-h, if the lesbian is really considered TOTALLY 'lez', there's really not even a base for even a merely academic interest...from either side. --- Unless, of course, some guys are really attracted to/by the idea of  "The Impossible Dream" (ie: the 'challenge' and all that; methinks females [lez or not] are more oriented to that than males [gay or not]). But, at this point, we're talking subtle masochism which I consider not really all that 'mainstream' an orientation.

      All else, if explicated, is mere words; it's not even 'fantasy.' ('Course, the tricky part is: "...if explicated..." Ntl, mebelieves that even 'fantasy' has it's limits, for everyone.)

      Think about the cliche of being 'stranded on a desert isle with...' --- What heterosexual guy would really want to be stranded with a TOTALLY 'lez' female? Uh, huh.

      A non-bisexual lesbian would have as much prob in that situation with an heterosexual marine-recruit as with a non-bisexual gay guy; no dif. And, (especially?), vice versa (for either guy.)

       Bi-sexuality has to be presumed...even for the 'fantasy.'
       ...not to mention her girl-friend as well.

LLAP
J:D

P.S:      I conclude all this from what things I've read.
P.P.S:   I read a lot.
:)




Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 29

Friday, October 21, 2005 - 9:19pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
HEY ALL....
I love you people, I love the secularists who populate this place, and I love all the serious and hilarious dialogue here. You make me laugh and think, and that's way more than George Bush's White House could ever do, even on a day that he's not spending all our money. The fact that I can write a column about a lesbian involving a man truly torn by his decision and get such spirited dialogue makes me filled with life-affirming glee. Thanks.

(Edited by Jamie Kelly on 10/21, 9:21pm)




Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 30

Friday, October 21, 2005 - 10:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yes, many hetero men fantasize about having two women simultaneously.  There are some who also appreciate the thought of just two women going at it, no guy in the picture.  Er, that's what someone told me once....  :-)



Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 31

Friday, October 21, 2005 - 10:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jamie:
 
     You've given me a great idea for a story !

     Scene 1: Cruise ship in hurricane accidentally hits whale. Ship jarring knocks 2 people overboard.
    
     Scene 2: (Later: Post-hurricane) Beach of uninhabited Pacific Isle (not marked on maps...yet). 2 bodies on different flotsam wash ashore within a mile of each other.

     Scene 3: Both slowly regain consciousness, stand up and look around; they notice each other at each 'end' of the beach. They wave at, then walk, then run towards each other. They meet.

     Scene 4: They hug, glad to be alive, and start talking (script needed here) wondering what happened to the ship, and, where are they?

     Scene 5: (Close-Ups alternating on each with each script-line)
         She: -You know, you look familiar; I've seen you on TV.
          He:  -Uhm, you also; this isn't a 'line'. Have you been on TV?
         She:  -Yes. My name's Camille Paglia. Yours is...?
          He:  -Andrew Sullivan

     Scene 6: 
        (I'm still working on this one..........................................this may take a while; I seemed to have just run into 'Writer's-Block')

LLAP
J:D 

P.S: Maybe I should've followed Rand's style, and worked out the ending 1st. (So, ok; it isn't the original Swept Away.  --- I never said this would be a 'classic' fer Zeus' sakes !)

(Edited by John Dailey on 10/21, 11:04pm)




Post 32

Friday, October 21, 2005 - 11:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John, your scenario isn't too far fetched.

What about prison? Think those girls & boys ain't getting it on? Any port in a storm.

Although I think I'd substitute Tammy Bruce for Camille :-)

BTW, this thread's got the potential to go ballistic. Hope someone hits the launch button :-)

Ross



Post 33

Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 6:56amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'm going to reprint this quote just ONE MORE TIME!

"That's if you're assuming she's a lipstick lesbian from a porn video and not a butch lesbian wearing boots and flannel listening to Melissa Etheridge and could tackle you in football and has armpit hair and...well, unless you like that sort of thing....not that there's anything wrong with that..."

This sounds true enough, but I will tell you from my experience, it isn't. M and I have walked into a bar in boots & flannel on many occasions and been smothered with attention. Neither of us are porn-star material, when I am not with her I don't rate a second glance from most guys. But if they see us together it's instant attraction. At our corner bar I never pay for a drink. They get sent over in a steady stream from guys who don't identify themselves or speak to us - just enjoy the thought or idea of us, maybe.

Very weird.

p.s. And we really liked Melissa Etheridge until a couple of days ago, when we heard that awful breast cancer run for the cure song.



Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 34

Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 7:33amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ashley,

There's something implied that borders on "rough sex" in that image that seems to appeal to the male ego.

Well, rough sex is a very Objectivist thing...

Hmmmmmmm...

Michael




Post 35

Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 8:01amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thank you ... Ashley. It's weird, it's hard to explain, but I've tried.
... when I am not with her I don't rate a second glance from most guys.
Well, that's hard to believe (as you're quite attractive). Another weird thing, and hard to explain, but I'll try (total speculation):

My guess is that you hold yourself so upright and so confidently (kind of like Xena the Warrior Princess) that men are simply intimidated by you.

Well, that's the best I could do from an armchair, anyway!

;-)

Ed




Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 36

Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 8:12amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Finding Happiness in Lesbos" surely wins the award for the greatest ever title for a SOLO article.

And Ed's post 8 surely wins the award for the most hilarious response. "I'm in possession of a 3-part evolutionary theory on the male fascination with lesbianism ..."

Ed my man, do you keep a straight face when you right this stuff? :-P



Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 37

Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 9:38amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Tim:
Thanks. I was a headline writer in my previous job at the newspaper, and indeed, I wrote the headline for my column.
Michael:
Rough sex as Objectivist? Now what (rape scene) ever (rape scene) gave you (rape scene) that (rape scene) idea?

(Edited by Jamie Kelly on 10/22, 9:41am)




Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 38

Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 10:01amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert Malcom,
Those who give the most milk tend to have small boobs...
Hey Robert, are you in possession of a 2-way ANOVA (a statistical analysis of variance) that had been run on a minimum of 20 females (40 breasts) per quintile cup size (from A to DD) that could be examine for a statistically-significant correlation coefficient? If you are not in possession of such, then please tell me sir: How is it that you are aware of the truth of your assertion?

Next you'll be telling me that the reason some women have smaller boobs is because they emptied more milk out from theirs!

;-)

Ed




Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 39

Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 10:23amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Tim,
Ed my man, do you keep a straight face when you right this stuff? :-P
Well, I more or less keep a straight face when writing. It's when folks like yourself call attention to things that I wrote (and I go back and read it as if I wasn't me, but a 3rd-party onlooker instead), that I lose composure and sometimes break out in a fit of surprised, difficult-to-suppress chuckles.

Whether I'm arguing about how bra cup size relates to breast milk outflow, or whether I'm arguing about the epistemological identifiability of living room ponies, I try to err on the rationalistic side of a hypothetically-complete operational cognitive perfection (or of a hypothetically flawless awareness and integration, if you will). Yeah, I take my philosophy sincerely alright -- but to hell with being totally serious (e.g. Peikoffian seriousness) though!

Anyway, thanks for the heads-up, Tim -- you helped me get a good laugh regarding what (and how) I wrote!

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 10/22, 10:25am)




Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page
[an error occurred while processing this directive]


User ID Password or create a free account.