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)
What better way to get me to sign up to RoR, than a thread discussion like this!
Here's my theory about hetero male interest in lezbos:
I don't have a theory. To those who understand, no explanation is needed. To those who don't, none is possible.
You either "get" what's hot about beautiful women getting it on, or you don't.
Ludwig van Beethoven is reported to have said that music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy. I only bring that up in connection with this point: Think of lezbos as like great music. It's a refined value for man's life qua man, even if you can't "explain" in precise terms why you find a piece of music great to someone who doesn't.
Well, this looks like as good a place as any to report that according to Leonard Peikoff's podcasts of Spring 2009 (1) There is nothing immoral about masturbating in public so long as you don't get caught. (june 8, 2008), and (2) Homosexuality is perfectly moral. Except if you are effeminate.
Peikoff's stuck in premise mode. He thinks homosexuality is caused by premises. (I wonder what he thinks about diabetics?) He holds that it is the result of subconscious premises acquired very young. If that were true, why don't we have people who are physically attracted to nursery books or stuffed animals? (Phil, you keep quiet.) He comes to the conclusion that effeminate men are attacking masculinity as such. Of course many behaviors are learned. But there are many homosexual men with feminine physical traits. I think the likelihood is that a certain type of homosexual has a physically feminized brain.
I don't suppose he has a duty to study such matters in detail. But then it might be better for him to keep his mouth shut. He suffers from the unspoken idea that since philosophy deals with broad matters it conveys broad knowledge. He doesn't know squat about the curved nature of spacetime, and when it is discussed he is hostile to exploring the notion. But he feels he can speak on the big bang with authority. He does advcoate the detailed study of history. And I can't imagine him thinking himself an expert on electronics or pharmacology. But he knows that all the mysteries of the human personality can be explained by "premises." Then strangely, he confesses over and over again how he finds people incomprehensible. What was it Rand said about if you reach a contradiction?
I do very strongly recommend that people listen to and chew through Peikoff's podcasts. He is interesting to listen to. (It reminds me of listening to the priest give his sermon on the week's reading.) He is often quite benevolent, if somewhat confused. A great example of his "method" is answering a question on how to deal with grief. Rand would have stepped one step back and asked why we grieve, what purpose it serves. She would have recognized that we only grieve for things we have valued, and seen that mourning is a tribute we pay to values no longer present. Peikoff simply takes grief as given. He is sympathetic to the idea that we should indulge our grief to an extent. Ands he rightly says that it is not immoral to medicate if necessary. But he can't provide any overall explanation or principles.
This may not be pure "Objectivism", but I can so live with that.
A clearer application of "One skin, one driver" is harder to imagine. Serially monogamous homosexuailty is no more of a secondary threat to 'One skin, one driver' than serially monogamous heterosexuality. If the drivers of two skins value each other, that is the only valueing that matters in the least. There is no 'we value' in any of that.
As far as finding happiness in Lesbos, you'd think mankind would have this problem licked by now.