Thoughts on homo, hetero and bisexuality

[thejohngaltline]

For me, being loved is almost a reflexive criteria for loving. Sort of co-necessities, if you will. Not quite sure how to put it. Maybe reciprocation escalates something into love, whereas, unreciporcated, it would simply remain or degrade into strong admiration.

I think the thing we're all dancing around putting our finger on here is that if someone does not love you back, they are intrinsically less attractive. For a man with a high self-esteem, who values himself and so can truly value others, the woman who does not "see" him like that and cannot or does not value him fully is less worthy for it.

If one is unique and valuable and special and knows it, the potential lover who does not is immediately lacking. She or he does not, then, like what you like, value what you value (at least in this one essential instance) and so is incompatible in a crucial way.

That person may still be incredibly valuable as a friend, admirable as a person, special even, but in the romantic context of this particular man and this particular woman together, the unrequiter is rendered unattractive.

[thejohngaltline]

Kendall, words such as "reflexive", "reciprocated", "requited" do not make it onto any of the pages of the book that is me. For you see, my love does not require the knowledge of them, in order to emotionally exist. In other words, they are not a necessary requirement, component, or prereq for my love. If I had such knowledge, and it was not requited or reciprocated, my love would not go out of emotional existence, or "degrade" at all. Nothing changes it like that, because whom I am in love with, has not changed. Nay, they in fact do change, they become even more loveable when I dare let myself peek at them, knowing full well, that the standard will be raised that much more each time... Kendall, the only way such vocabulary will be thought of by me, is when my love is "reciprocated" or "requited", by whom I love. Then things can "escalate" if we want them to. Until then, I think nothing of the sort. I only care that there is a woman that I can love in existence, that I am in love, and I care not if I am actually loved by them, nor by anyone else for that matter. Dare I say, I might not be loveable myself...but to others that is. Regardless, my "loveablity" as such does not change another persons "loveability" to me any...

Correct me if I'm wrong, Steve, but I think you are speaking of loving someone before or without an explicit statement of reciprocity from them. Loving someone the way you love a beautiful temple on a hill top; not knowing if you will ever live there, but knowing, when you pass it, that it is a beautiful and perfect ideal. I don't think "loving" Natalie Portman could be an appropriate analogy for that unless one knew her personally. That kind of love, the kind of love I think Steve means, is the kind of love that stirs within you when you see someone who is a perfect embodiment of your own ideals--not just physically, but emotionally, morally, rationally. And so you love them and value them and treasure the knowledge that they exist, whether you or they act or have acted on that attraction or not.

[intellectualammo]

Correct me if I'm wrong, Steve, but I think you are speaking of loving someone before or without an explicit statement of reciprocity from them.

Yes, correct.

That kind of love, the kind of love I think Steve means, is the kind of love that stirs within you when you see someone who is a perfect embodiment of your own ideals--not just physically, but emotionally, morally, rationally. And so you love them and value them and treasure the knowledge that they exist, whether you or they act or have acted on that attraction or not.

You hit the nail on the head, Charlie Girl. Well said (thanks for turning my lead into gold for me).

[~Sophia~]

That kind of love, the kind of love I think Steve means, is the kind of love that stirs within you when you see someone who is a perfect embodiment of your own ideals--not just physically, but emotionally, morally, rationally. And so you love them and value them and treasure the knowledge that they exist, whether you or they act or have acted on that attraction or not.

(bold mine)

But you have to know that person very very well in order to truly know that this in fact is true. I guess a situation like can happen but I think most of the time when people have strong feelings for someone they have never been in a relationship with - it is mostly based on their own projections. Our mind has a preference for searching for patterns and so based on some evidence people build a model, in their mind, of who they think the person is and then based on that model they fill in the blanks of knowledge with assumptions (and if they happen to like the person those assumptions will be on a positive side).

When you look at a work of art (or a house) - you see in front of you all there is to see. That can not be said about people. That kind of integration can not be assumed without having a lot of direct evidence and I mean here mostly in terms of actions for which you would have to spend a lot of time with them, be arround in their moments of glory and sorrow, in order to see how they deal with reality on a regular bases. If you do have all of this knowledge about another and you still feel a deep romantic admiration then that is rational love (which imo is the only true kind).

Edited November 11, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[DragonMaci]

But you have to know that person very very well in order to truly know that this in fact is true. I guess a situation like can happen but I think most of the time when people have strong feelings for someone they have never been in a relationship with - it is mostly based on their own projections. Our mind has a preference for searching for patterns and so based on some evidence people build a model, in their mind, of who they think the person is and then based on that model they fill in the blanks of knowledge with assumptions (and they like the person those assumptions will be on a positive side).

When you look at a work of art (or a house) - you see in front of you all there is to see. That can not be said about people.

You can love someone based on the essential requirements you have for what sort of person you love (platonic, love of their existence, or romantic). Those essentials can sometimes, depending on context, be learnt very quickly. Ususually such love is an initial, more fragile, weaker love that is susceptible to new facts about the person that is discovered, but not always.

[KendallJ]

I think the thing we're all dancing around putting our finger on here is that if someone does not love you back, they are intrinsically less attractive. For a man with a high self-esteem, who values himself and so can truly value others, the woman who does not "see" him like that and cannot or does not value him fully is less worthy for it.

If one is unique and valuable and special and knows it, the potential lover who does not is immediately lacking. She or he does not, then, like what you like, value what you value (at least in this one essential instance) and so is incompatible in a crucial way.

That person may still be incredibly valuable as a friend, admirable as a person, special even, but in the romantic context of this particular man and this particular woman together, the unrequiter is rendered unattractive.

Bingo. Very well put.

I think I'm starting to see the contrast in what Steve and I are discussing.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Steve, but I think you are speaking of loving someone before or without an explicit statement of reciprocity from them. Loving someone the way you love a beautiful temple on a hill top; not knowing if you will ever live there, but knowing, when you pass it, that it is a beautiful and perfect ideal. I don't think "loving" Natalie Portman could be an appropriate analogy for that unless one knew her personally. That kind of love, the kind of love I think Steve means, is the kind of love that stirs within you when you see someone who is a perfect embodiment of your own ideals--not just physically, but emotionally, morally, rationally. And so you love them and value them and treasure the knowledge that they exist, whether you or they act or have acted on that attraction or not.

I know this feeling. I really do. When I introspect on the differences between this one and what I'm referring to as love, they don't feel the same to me. What you describe above, and Steve, chime in here too if you have a perspective, feels almost like the sort of feeling I would have toward a work of art. Granted, this is a real person we're talking about, so the effect might be even more enhanced, but the concept of seeing your ideal in concrete form, and treasuring the knowledge that they exist, but at the same time, being content with the knowledge that you wouldn't act upon such a feeling. I don't associate that feeling with the the idea of love. At least not the way I'm using it, as this-worldy. The thing I'm talking about almost requires action. And unrequited, it evaporates, as such, in the manner Charlotte describes above.

Not sure I've articualted that the way I want, but we'll give it a whirl.

Maybe that's why T and I are using an example like Natalie Portman when we refer to what we think is expressed above, because it feels more like art.

I'm interested if you or Steve have got concrete examples of such a thing to discuss.

[KendallJ]

But you have to know that person very very well in order to truly know that this in fact is true. I guess a situation like can happen but I think most of the time when people have strong feelings for someone they have never been in a relationship with - it is mostly based on their own projections. Our mind has a preference for searching for patterns and so based on some evidence people build a model, in their mind, of who they think the person is and then based on that model they fill in the blanks of knowledge with assumptions (and if they happen to like the person those assumptions will be on a positive side).

Yeah, that's similar to the feeling toward a work of art. When I feel that way about a concrete individual, it always feels to me, or I want to classify it in the realm of fantasy, as if I've created my own piece of art out of the details I know of another person. And I allow myself to feel it, even deeply, but also content with thought that I can't or would never act on those feelings.

[intellectualammo]

What you describe above, and Steve, chime in here too if you have a perspective, feels almost like the sort of feeling I would have toward a work of art. Granted, this is a real person we're talking about, so the effect might be even more enhanced, but the concept of seeing your ideal in concrete form, and treasuring the knowledge that they exist, but at the same time, being content with the knowledge that you wouldn't act upon such a feeling.

Completely content. Rational men know when they aren't in the same league as the one they adore. They either strive to be a man that can be worshipped by the one they love, or just remain content in loving them, until dare I speak these words again, "someone better comes along".

And unrequited, it evaporates, as such, in the manner Charlotte describes above.

like what she said here?:

I think the thing we're all dancing around putting our finger on here is that if someone does not love you back, they are intrinsically less attractive.

I don't completely agree with that, and I'm not to be grouped into "we're all". As I said my "loveablilty" has no impact on the "loveability" of the woman I love. Perhaps, a man is currently actualizing their potentials, or still trying to conquer, but such actions and or efforts may never be adequate enough for the woman they adore, and that is completly understandable to me, given who the woman might be. Kendall, in my case, this is the highest and she may just be too high... How can such a woman, "look up to" such a man? ...really though, that is not a question I ask. When they can "look up to", maybe they already do, or have, but regardless, it certainly wouldn't make me love her any less in this sense. I do agree with what could be said in other cases, however.

I'm interested if you or Steve have got concrete examples of such a thing to discuss.

I do.

I guess a situation like can happen but I think most of the time when people have strong feelings for someone they have never been in a relationship with - it is mostly based on their own projections.

Or what the other person is projecting. What you said can be true too and might often be the case.

Edited November 11, 2007 by intellectualammo

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I think one has to be careful here regarding unrequited love. Sure, a man can be greatly inspired to do marvelous things when he thinks he is in love with a woman; in a way it goes to the root of his motivation, that desire to experience love in total: mind, body, and spirit. To have it all in one package, so to speak. When a man thinks he can have that, he is willing to go out and conquer the entire world, if need be. Not physically, like Alexander the Great, but spiritually -- in the sense of taking on the whole world on his own terms. He might feel this as a constant anyhow, but it is greatly enhanced when he is in love. His treasure is there and it is real, and he wants to earn it constantly -- to earn her love.

But let's be honest. If it is unrequited, if he does all those great things and she knows about it and she does not reciprocate the emotional response in kind, then it is a great let down. I think because it becomes Platonic love, and not actual love. I suppose in a sense one can love her from afar and still retain that motivation to be the very best he can be, but sex is an expression of this -- the physical and emotional reward for him being who he is -- qua man and qua male. And for her not to reciprocate in kind is to regard him as invisible; at least that's the way it comes across psychologically.

A man is not a ghost -- not just a spirit requiring only spiritual fuel. And he is not just a body, requiring physical sustenance. He is an integrated being of both mind and body and he needs to be able to express this union in one act that sums it all up in an intense pleasure: which is what sex is all about.

In this context, I don't understand something that Sophia said (I think in this tread) that a woman does not respond to a man's knowledge or intellectuality, but rather to his masculinity. I suppose in a sense this is true. For heterosexuals, it is masculinity attracted to femininity, and vice versa. But qua intellectual, I consider my knowledge and my ability to penetrate an issue and my ability to take pleasure in that act to be an expression of my masculinity. It's all one thing: My ability to shape the world according to my desires and to take pleasure in that ability qua man.

In other words, I expect a woman to fall in love with me because of my ability to write these essays. I expect her to see that these are an expression not only of my intellect, but also of my virtue, qua male.

And I suspect that the females writing on this forum expect that as well, that their mind and that expression on this forum is their femininity; a way of saying: I am here! Take me, I'm yours!

At least that's the way it ought to be, if one is an integrated being of both mind and body.

[~Sophia~]

In this context, I don't understand something that Sophia said (I think in this tread) that a woman does not respond to a man's knowledge or intellectuality, but rather to his masculinity.

I did not say that she does not respond but rather that it alone is not enough. It is only a part of the equation. And you just above answered the question: Why? when you said:

A man is not a ghost -- not just a spirit requiring only spiritual fuel. And he is not just a body, requiring physical sustenance. He is an integrated being of both mind and body and he needs to be able to express this union in one act that sums it all up in an intense pleasure: which is what sex is all about.

Although what you call spiritual attraction (which includes his intellect) is also a part of sexual attraction, sexual attraction is also, and to a great extend, a response to man's masculinity.

In other words, I expect a woman to fall in love with me because of my ability to write these essays. I expect her to see that these are an expression not only of my intellect, but also of my virtue, qua male.

This is a value qua man and NOT qua male. What you are thinking here is a mistake. I suggest you rethink that expectation.

And I suspect that the females writing on this forum expect that as well, that their mind and that expression on this forum is their femininity; a way of saying: I am here! Take me, I'm yours!

No. See above. It is only my ability qua man not qua female. Athough my opinions on certain things will be from a female perspective - intellectual competence in itself if you will is not an expression of my femininity (or anyone's gender).

At least that's the way it ought to be...

No.

Edited November 11, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[DragonMaci]

The thing I'm talking about almost requires action. And unrequited, it evaporates, as such, in the manner Charlotte describes above.

It is the same with me. I loved a woman romantically recently, but when I found out she was unavailable my feelings for her changed very quickly. I no longer love her romantically. Instead I love her in a similar way as I love good art. I love that my values are expressed in concrete form.

Completely content. Rational men know when they aren't in the same league as the one they adore. They either strive to be a man that can be worshipped by the one they love...

I don't think "worshipped" is the right word. From wordnet-online.com:

Adjective worshipped has 1 sense

1. adored, idolized, idolised, worshipped - regarded with deep or rapturous love (especially as if for a god); "adored grandchildren"; "an idolized wife"
   

Verb worship has 3 senses

1. <a href=http://www.wordnet-online.com/idolize.shtml">idolize, idolise, worship, hero-worship, revere - love unquestioningly and uncritically or to excess; venerate as an idol; "Many teenagers idolized the Beatles"
   --₁ is one way to adore
   
2. worship - show devotion to (a deity); "Many Hindus worship Shiva"
   
3. worship - attend religious services; "They worship in the traditional manner"
   

The first two definitions have the commanility of being idiolised, which is not something I want. The second says, "unquestioningly and uncritically." No rational man wants that. The last two are religious and as such do not apply in this context.

A man is not a ghost -- not just a spirit requiring only spiritual fuel. And he is not just a body, requiring physical sustenance. He is an integrated being of both mind and body and he needs to be able to express this union in one act that sums it all up in an intense pleasure: which is what sex is all about.

We don't "need" sex. I am 25 and have never had sex and have not suffered any pyschological harm as a result. So, I don't see that we "need" sex. Desire it? Yes. Of course it is a crucial part of romance, but that is a seperate issue.

[intellectualammo]

I don't think "worshipped" is the right word. From wordnet-online.com:

[...]regarded with deep or rapturous love[...]

(bold mine)

It definately is, even in the defintion that you pasted here. I will not go into the usage any further of the word "worship" / "worshipped", because there's another thread where this was discussed or can be discussed in here.

Edited November 12, 2007 by intellectualammo

[Prometheus98876]

If you do a "define: worship" search on Google, you get these results among others:

*a feeling of profound love and admiration

*a virtue, is the reverent love and devotion accorded a deity, or a sacred object, the ceremonies, prayers, or other religious forms by which this love is expressed. "Let there be Light" is the first Principle of all Creation. Light contains all three Emanations as One. We worship the Light. ...

Now both of those are somewhat valid, and shed light on the meaning of "worship" as used by Intellectualammo.

"Worship" in the context he means something like:

"A reverent, profound, love and devotion accorded to a NATURAL object held in the highest (or at least very high) regard."

You see: worship is not always directed at the supernatural.

[DragonMaci]

(bold mine)

It definately is, even in the defintion that you pasted here. I will not go into the usage any further of the word "worship" / "worshipped", because there's another thread where this was discussed or can be discussed in here.

You ignored the part where it makes it clear they mean to the point of being idolized, ie, ' "an idolized wife." ' and the fact I said I don't agree with the "idolized part. Yes, being regarded with deep or rapturous love is something a rational man would want, but not to the point of being idolized.

I will look at that thread, though I don't see what worship has to do with adopting the husband's name.

If you do a "define: worship" search on Google, you get these results among others:

*a feeling of profound love and admiration

*a virtue, is the reverent love and devotion accorded a deity, or a sacred object, the ceremonies, prayers, or other religious forms by which this love is expressed. "Let there be Light" is the first Principle of all Creation. Light contains all three Emanations as One. We worship the Light. ...

Now both of those are somewhat valid, and shed light on the meaning of "worship" as used by Intellectualammo.

"Worship" in the context he means something like:

"A reverent, profound, love and devotion accorded to a NATURAL object held in the highest (or at least very high) regard."

You see: worship is not always directed at the supernatural.

Firstly, I know it isn't always defined as the supernatural. Only the second two definitions contain such (the first only uses it as a particular not the definition) and if you read over my post again you should see that I only complained about the supernatural in the case of the last two definitions and not the first two. So, you didn't need to point out to me that the definition doesn't always include the supernatural. You just wasted some of your time and effort.

Secondly, I don't consider Google a primary source of definitions, thougb in this case it seems to of done a decent job.

Finally, I will admit that the first Google definition and your own one are things I'd want. However, I think there are better words to use than "worship." Besides, I think "love" or "romantic love" suffices.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

We don't "need" sex. I am 25 and have never had sex and have not suffered any psychological harm as a result. So, I don't see that we "need" sex. Desire it? Yes. Of course it is a crucial part of romance, but that is a separate issue.

There is no offense intended in this reply, since I was older than that when I first had sex, but I have to say that if you have not experienced it, then you don't know what you are talking about.

My sexual encounters with women have been few and far between, because I am very selective, and unfortunately, they decided not to stick around or I'd be married by now. By this I mean that like Howard Roark, I am a command to rise and the rising itself when it comes to my woman. That is, I can be very encouraging, including writing love letters and cuddling and being there with her, and this is definitely good for one, male and female; but they decided that they didn't want to rise. Kind of like Dagny being somewhat afraid when she was with Francisco that they were on an elevator going straight up. Most of my women have not been Objectivists, and coming across that new rational philosophy was rather scary to them. I mean, there is a whole culture there (especially in The Romantic Manifesto) that I eagerly and gently introduced them to, but they drew back from it as from a hot flame.

But basically, one's total being is enlivened when one is in love and being physically interactive with one another -- from being in the same room, to cuddling and kissing, to petting, and all the way to glorious sex. There is a kind of physiological afterglow to doing those things, which is good for men and women, both psychologically and physically.

And it is in this sense that one needs sex. You are not going to die if you don't get it, but you are not going to live as well without it. That mind / body integration in one act is very beneficial.

I even wrote a poem about this, called:

Productive Independency [Romantic call to loveliness]

I wrote it in such a way that it would fit into a personal listing in a local newspaper, which is why each line has the same number of characters.

[intellectualammo]

If you do a "define: worship" search on Google, you get these results among others:

*a feeling of profound love and admiration

*a virtue, is the reverent love and devotion accorded a deity, or a sacred object, the ceremonies, prayers, or other religious forms by which this love is expressed. "Let there be Light" is the first Principle of all Creation. Light contains all three Emanations as One. We worship the Light. ...

Now both of those are somewhat valid, and shed light on the meaning of "worship" as used by Intellectualammo.

"Worship" in the context he means something like:

"A reverent, profound, love and devotion accorded to a NATURAL object held in the highest (or at least very high) regard."

You see: worship is not always directed at the supernatural.

Yes, that's exactly it, Dwayne. The thread that I linked to goes even further into it.

[Inspector]

No. See above. It is only my ability qua man not qua female. Athough my opinions on certain things will be from a female perspective - intellectual competence in itself if you will is not an expression of my femininity (or anyone's gender).

Ah, you may be stuck thinking in a feminine mode here (which is not a fault, mind you). Remember that man's primary expression of his gender is in dealing with reality. So general competence is an expression of our sexuality (in the right context).

I could be wrong, but those are my initial thoughts.

[DragonMaci]

But basically, one's total being is enlivened when one is in love and being physically interactive with one another -- from being in the same room, to cuddling and kissing, to petting, and all the way to glorious sex. There is a kind of physiological afterglow to doing those things, which is good for men and women, both psychologically and physically.

And it is in this sense that one needs sex. You are not going to die if you don't get it, but you are not going to live as well without it. That mind / body integration in one act is very beneficial.

We don't need to do things just because they are good for us. There are many things that are good for us, but we don't need, so you are going to need to make a better argument than that.

Also, I realise that sex is beneficial. I didn't need that pointed out to me. I pretty much said as much in my post. Maybe you should re-read it.

I even wrote a poem about this, called:

Productive Independency [Romantic call to loveliness]

I wrote it in such a way that it would fit into a personal listing in a local newspaper, which is why each line has the same number of characters.

What has that got to do with whether or not we need sex?

[~Sophia~]

Ah, you may be stuck thinking in a feminine mode here (which is not a fault, mind you). Remember that man's primary expression of his gender is in dealing with reality. So general competence is an expression of our sexuality (in the right context).

Expression of gender? Please explain that a bit more. I don't see it but I am open to the argument.

[DragonMaci]

From the thread Steve linked to:

Rand wrote in the introduction to the 20th Anniversary Edition of TF:

D'oh! I'd forgotten about that little gem and its message despite having read it and agreeing with it. I think I am beginning to see how "worship" is a relevant and proper word for describing the emotion felt. Especially in light of this, also from that thread:

(Bold emphasis mine)

I don't like the part in bold. It seems to be saying that such a women won't treat men, even ones that she considers to be of value, but not enough to be a lover, as a friend since "pal" is just a synonym for "friend". Why wouldn't she treat such men as friends?

I like the rest of what that says though.

[Prometheus98876]

I realized I forgot to mention that not all worship involves idols except in the sense that an idol can be a "paragon" ie "an ideal instance; a perfect embodiment of a concept", which I think is pretty key here. One worships those things that are to a great extent (or are perceived to be) embodiments of values.

Also not all worship is "unquestioningly and uncritically." In fact, proper, serious worship of something real is based on the a great deal of thought etc required to form a value mentally and to maintain the ability to identify instances of it in reality.

So I am going to change the definition just a little:

"A reverent, profound, love and devotion accorded to a NATURAL object held in the highest (or at least very high) regard because that object is a perfect (or near perfect) embodiment of ones highest values"

That is the definition of worship one could properly use to utter say the following sentence: "I worship my wife as an heroic being".

Thanks by the way Intellectualammo. I have not read that thread, and from what I hear about it, it might not be worth my time anyway, not nearer the end anyway.

Edited November 12, 2007 by Prometheus98876

[Prometheus98876]

We don't "need" sex. I am 25 and have never had sex and have not suffered any psychological harm as a result. So, I don't see that we "need" sex. Desire it? Yes. Of course it is a crucial part of romance, but that is a separate issue.

By the way, you are right, we do not NEED sex in the strictest sense that if we do not have any we will not die. Though in the proper context it is an immensely valuable thing and one would be psychologically better off having experienced it. And definitely, at least in a proper romance, it is a key part of the relationship, without which the relationship eventually would become strained.

But the fact that you are 25 and have not yet had sex and yet have not psychologically suffered; is no argument for not needing sex. All it says is that you have not found a need, YET. Without other facts, how is one to know that applies to them or anyone else as well?

If you are going to make an argument for not needing sex try state a fact that obviously does not apply just to you. Like the fact that individual human survival does not depend on sex as such, it is not a physical or psychological need for survival (though for optimal happiness (and assuming sex in the right context again)? Well maybe you might need it then).

Edited November 12, 2007 by Prometheus98876

[Inspector]

That is the definition of worship one could properly use to utter say the following sentence: "I worship my wife as an heroic being".

No, one could not be proper and say such a thing. It is the woman who worships the man. Honestly, people, RTFM.

[Prometheus98876]

No, one could not be proper and say such a thing. It is the woman who worships the man. Honestly, people, RTFM.

OK, OK. Fine...not the best example then. Other way round then makes a better example I suppose.

[Inspector]

Expression of gender? Please explain that a bit more. I don't see it but I am open to the argument.

What I mean by "expression of gender" is the acts by which one is masculine or feminine. The essence of the masculine is strength - or, more broadly it is efficaciousness. A woman can be strong and efficacious but she doesn't express her sexuality by doing so. A man's sexuality, however, is tied to efficaciousness and so he can be masculine simply by being good at something. This can be an intellectual task, as well, provided that there isn't some complicating factor involved (i.e. it is something feminine or otherwise interfering). In other words, I believe an intellectual accomplishment can definitely be an expression of masculinity as long as the man is, well, masculine about it - i.e. as long as he is forceful, passionate, confident, and so forth in his delivery.

Certainly, my personal experience does back this up.

OK, OK. Fine...not the best example then. Other way round then makes a better example I suppose.

To say the least.