Your happiness on this planet is your own business, because frankly, we’re all going to die someday, some of us sooner than others, of course. And if you die in the arms of a Seattle lesbian who loves you, well, you’re luckier than most people in the world. (Read more...)
Discuss this Article(66 messages)
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.
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
"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?"
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.
P.S: I conclude all this from what things I've read. P.P.S: I read a lot. :)
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.
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.... :-)
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')
P.S: Maybe I should've followed Rand's style, and worked out the ending 1st. (So, ok; it isn't the originalSwept Away. --- I never said this would be a 'classic' fer Zeus' sakes !)
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.
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.
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?
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 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!