Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

brandonk2009

Regulars
  • Content Count

    71
  • Joined

  • Last visited

5 Followers

About brandonk2009

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  • Birthday 08/08/1990

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Chat Nick
    bk
  • Relationship status
    Single
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright
    Public Domain

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. Sexual attraction, yes. Sexual orientation, no. I've made this distinction earlier in this thread. Sexual orientation denotes the sexual preference for the same gender, another gender, either gender, or neither gender. Sexual attraction denotes preferences in physical (as in appearance) and/or personality characteristics, or other qualities of a person. Physiological and biological evidence suggests that sexual orientation is a naturally developing phenomena. Sexual attraction, however, has been shown to be heavily influenced by environment or culture... ultimately psychology. Incest is
  2. Again, I'm going to emphasize that I reject any argument suggesting that homosexuality is caused purely due to environment—that includes any sort of psychological viewpoint stemming from cultural perspectives. The pure psychological view ignores all the physiological factors and components to human sexuality. I would agree that Pashtun misogyny is a result of the culture, but I do not think that Pashtun homosexuality or any homosexuality is caused by culture. The problem with assigning a causal factor between misogyny and homosexuality is multidimensional: 1) that factor is restricted to Pa
  3. However, behavior that is commonly associated with homosexuals is not an inherent result of homosexuality. A guy who plays football is a football player, but the fact that one football player drinks beer frequently does not apply to all football players. For example, in America, the stereotype is that homosexual men are effeminate. Anyone who believes that should take a trip to San Francisco during Folsom (gay leather fetish celebration, personally, I'm not into it). The non-sexual behavior is separate from the sexual orientation. In the same vein, I would argue that the Pashtun hatred towards
  4. Meaning, I don't believe that one can purely blame the culture for the sexual orientation known as homosexuality. When I used "as such" I meant, homosexuality as sexual orientation, not homosexuality as the characteristic behavior of a group of homosexuals. I would agree that a culture has an effect on the behavior of not just homosexuals, but every member of the culture. For example, no homosexual is born with limp wrists and lisps. That is something that is controlled by environment. However, I don't think you can make the case that sexual orientation is conditioned or a pure result of en
  5. I would vehemently disagree that culture causes the phenomena of homosexuality as such. I would agree that culture could perhaps increase the perceived prevalence. Physiological evidence shows that both men and women could potentially enjoy homosexual sex. Is it a far stretch then, to assume that perhaps humans are biologically ambisexual? I think any argument that strictly restricts homosexuality to a purely environmental or otherwise conditioned cause is inherently flawed. It just doesn't jive with the physiology of the human body. And as far as the Maldives, with guys holding hands, s
  6. What you should have immediately emphasized to A is A is that you are using "subjective" in the context Austrian economics utilizes. A is A is definitely using "subjective" in the context Ayn Rand utilizes. The fact that neither one of you are willing to recognize and be flexible with those contexts shows that you are either both obtuse, or perhaps just stubborn. With that said, it should be noted Grames, that most people involved with the philosophical (rather than the economic) theory of value, use "agent-relative" to describe the position that all values require a valuer. They do not classi
  7. Many people on this thread have labeled electronic music as "complex", yet they don't substantiate that claim in any way. All I read is that the music is "genius", it is "complex" yet I can't think of any particular reason why. The essence of this music, it seems to me, is repetition. Rhythms, melodies (if you can call them that), harmonies, and musical structures are repeated over and over and over again. Perhaps there is layering involved of one repetitive structure over another, yet that doesn't seem to be a formula for complexity. In short, what I see in electronic music is monotony and
  8. I wouldn't call it a theory-practice dichotomy, though perhaps it's related. I would say that a more precise classification of his argument would be to call it a nominalist approach to concepts and definitions. See: Wikipedia Article on Nominalism Nominalism entry from the Ayn Rand Lexicon
  9. The section talking about book censorship reminded me of a Ray Bradbury quote: You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them. Which brings up another thing I thought about. Though Huxley and Orwell have both accurately predicted the way our world has evolved, Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 has been the most accurate representation of the way pop culture and visual media have evolved.
  10. It's true that the pilot had a lot stuffed into it. What series pilot doesn't? In order to attract an audience, the pilot has to present the most provoking aspects of the series. This not only encourages networks to air the series, but it sets up what audiences can expect and what may interest them. I thought the pilot for V did this exceptionally well. I left the television series wanting to know what is going to happen and what new twists were going to pop up. I never saw the original V series... I wasn't born yet. But it seems to me that it's irrelevant how closely this series copies the
  11. That was only an example. I wasn't trying to imply that all boys had, or should have had, a hero who was an athlete. (I wouldn't say that I hate sports, but they are certainly not something I enjoy watching or participate in.) What I was trying to explain was my thought that children tend to emulate their heroes or those who they look up to in general, and that those heroes often form the basis of a person's views on what constitutes masculinity and femininity. Masculinity and Femininity are important concepts only when you are discussing the nature of humans and how that determines what th
  12. I don't think gender is an anti-concept. It's very absurd to think so. Gender refers to distinct physiological differences. However, you may be able to apply that to the concepts of masculinity and femininity. In "About a Woman President" (it can be found in The Voice of Reason) Rand wrote: The important part here is that Rand thinks that the concepts of masculinity and femininity are metaphysical concepts. This simply means that the essence of these concepts refer to the identities of men and women in existence, they are not cultural constructs. I think that this is correct, and a ver
  13. Don't worry about stirring anything up with me, when it comes to my own sexuality I'm quite comfortable and unscathed by the views and judgments of others. You're absolutely right when you say that man's body "speaks dominance". That is exactly what I'm attracted to. Can I not express my own dominant personality when I have sex with another dominant man? It's true that in one sense, one is going to be more dominant than the other. But in the act of sex dominance is not set in stone, even in heterosexual sex I would surmise that at times a woman may take the reigns. Dominance can flow easily be
  14. Of course not. I was only noting that both sexes have the physical capacity to enjoy sex with either gender. Is it unreasonable to assume that this capacity blends with the development of sexual orientation? Also, I am quite skeptical of the very generic term "sexuality". Sexual orientation "is not determined by what a person finds physically pleasurable, but rather which sex they are attracted to..."
  15. I don't think that saying that there is a genetic factor to homosexuality is determinism. A lot of choice is still involved. An important distinction to make is between sexual attraction and sexual orientation. Sexual attraction refers to what a person finds desirable in another human. This is closely connected to one's sense of life and their values. Sexual orientation on the other hand refers to a pattern of sexual attraction to either a man, a woman, both genders, neither genders, or another gender. Research has shown that the development of sexual orientation is essentially biological (
×
×
  • Create New...