Fabilius

Aren´t all countries like that? Name one country where national tendencies are not taught and encouraged?

Alright then, how did the homosexual animals "learn" their behaviours. And how do homosexual acquire homosexual traits? Unless you can answer those questions you seem to be taking the irrational side. The most rational reasoning seems to be they are born with it. Only if you truly wish having children is being gay irrational. Otherwise it´s just one way of satisfying your sexual needs and preventing loneliness. Your question: "Should I try to change this aspect of myself?" is only the right one if being homosexual is the reason of some unhappiness. If it isn´t an obstacle towards your well-being why should you try to change it. The ones who seem to be most upset about being homosexual seem to be so for religious reasons... not very rational at all. So basically if you really want your own child and not some adopted one it is not really less rational as a life choice than being straight.

Isn´t denying your homosexuality a denial of your self? After all it exists not only in humans so I´m inclined to think it´s something you´re born with rather than psychologically created. Haven´t all psychological treatments until now failed to stop it?

Not really, now adays USA´s advantage is shrinked in comparison to the burdens it takes on. Of course many accuse USA of selfishly guarding it´s own interests and noone argues that it is a good thing in itself. Both from the right and left voices say USA should shoulder the burden of others. On the whole involvement in WWII was unavoidable, since USA was attacked and the directly threatened it´s interests. But WWI wasn´t really unavoidable and it really on the whole didn´t matter all that much to USA whether Germany would win or lose. In reality a stalemate probably would have suited USA´s interests best.

Yes, I agree that you shouldn´t reduce tragedy to a morality play. But it´s purpose according to f.x. Aristotle was to ingrain morality. (That is how he explains it in poetics). Anyway, the authors vary in morality, some plays were rewarded, others were disliked. Some were controversial. Of course the main hero- is always a hero, but he has a tragic flaw and in most cases he can´t overcome them. But in some cases as you point out in Orestes you overcome it.

Thanks. Didn´t know she had written more plays.

The most popular and in my opinion most probable idea about the origin of Greek theatre is that it sprang up from mystic rituals. The university of Cambridge published last year a good book summarizing all the arguments for that the last year. I think it simply was called Greek Tragedy, or something like that. I´ve not read all the tragic plays nor studied it too full extent, but I am theatre student and my B.A. was written about similar theories arguing the existence of drama in Scandinavia during the early middle ages. It´s true that art reflects society, and what you say I agree with essentially. The greek tragedies according to Aristotle were supposed to ingrain a certain morality. In essence the typical plot is as follows: A man is noble and great. He is admired by everyone, beautiful and wise. This man ceases to know his limits, challenges the authority of the gods or public morality. The man comes to a tragic ending. It tells us something that the first public fundings for theatre in Athens was at a time when a dictator ruled and that he specifically did this to ingrain into the people a certain feeling of patriotism. I don´t think the greek experience was a completely religious one. Mostly because so many things in ancient societies were connected to religion. Prostitution in some societies, most things were blessed by one god or another. It´s an interesting subject, there is whole field of studies about the political, social and religious context of the tragedies. Some tragedies were controversial, some of the ancient authors weren´t excactly mainstream, I´d quote something juicy if I had a bit better memory, but I recommend reading Erika Fischer´s Lichte first chapter in her "history of theatre". It basically analyses the most famous plays and puts it into context with individual identity. Her book is basically about how Theatre reflected what society thought of individuals. Or didn´t reflect. She isn´t an objectivist or anything in that direction I think but she does put things into context so that one can reach your own conclusions.

Yes, but personally I´d advice any friend against it. Once it´s done it´s difficult to change ones mind. But of course if you are willing to tear your genitalia apart then I don´t think anyone can stop you, I can´t imagine it to be easy.

Hello everyone, incidentally I just signed up and this is my first thread started. I am student at the Icelandic Art University, and there I study Theatre. So it´s quite obvious why I´d start a thread on the subject. Anyway, I put this under visual art and not under literature because the art of performance and the art of writing texts for performance is not the same. I searched for a thread on the same subject but apparently no thread exists on the subject according to the search machine. Does objectivist theatre exist or has any of you ever heard of performances related to objectivism? I know that Ayn Rand wrote one piece for theatre but I don´t know much more about it. Did the people who made it make anything similar after that one might ask oneself. I´ll do a small search on wikipedia and google about it now and see what I find. Look forward to hearing from forum-members.

It´s very good stuff.

I´m not sure it´s impossible to change your sex. It may be now, but science and the human potential are unlimited in my opinion. Eventually someone would figure out a way to make a woman create sperm and man have a womb. Tramsgenderism isn´t necessarily homosexual either. Just like crossdressing is more common among straighters than gay people. I don´t have anything against it per say. I think it doesn´t hurt me and if someone thinks it will make them more happy then I think they should just go for it and try to be happy. That can´t be immoral, can it?