Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Homosexuality vs. Heterosexuality

Rate this topic


RationalEgoistSG

Recommended Posts

Dan,

That was his complete response for that particular question, but he has commented other times, in other podcasts, on the subject of homosexuality. I'm sure that you could browser-search this print version of the Unofficial Podcast Index here on the forum using key words to find everything he said on the subject in his podcasts.

In one podcast, I remember him saying that he gets the question all the time as to whether homosexuals can also be Objectivists, and that he would answer it one more final time. That is probably where you will find your answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I haven't listened to that podcast, but I will soon. Does Peikoff take this statement to its logical ethical conclusion, i.e. that homosexuality must be a-moral since it is non-volitional? Maybe some day soon we'll get to the point where Objectivists everywhere promote same sex marriage on the basis of common law principle...

--Dan Edge

Well, he's not gonna condemn anyone for things they didn't choose. If someone is gay, then it's moral for them to be gay (express themselves sexually and seek out gay relationships), and if they're not gay, then homosexuality would be an immoral choice.

Choosing sexual acts remains in the domain of Ethics, so I can't see why he would call it a-moral. Plus, the purpose of Ethics is not for us to go around pronouncing impersonal, context free moral judgment on strangers in this vile fashion for instance, so why would Peikoff need to give further absolution to gays?

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jake,

It's not that the homosexual's choices with regard to sex are a-moral; it's that the fact of his homosexuality is a-moral. Considering the confusion surrounding this topic for millenia, I think it's important to be very specific about this.

--Dan Edge

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jake,

It's not that the homosexual's choices with regard to sex are a-moral; it's that the fact of his homosexuality is a-moral. Considering the confusion surrounding this topic for millenia, I think it's important to be very specific about this.

--Dan Edge

That is my take on it as well- the fact of their sexuality (if one deems it more often than not innate as I do) is outside of morality, the choices made in expressing it however can be moral or immoral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that saying sexuality is not a choice is a form of biological or genetic determinism.

Interesting post, Jack.

The conclusion I've come to is that sexuality is both determined and open to choice. What I mean is, each individual starts out with a starting sexuality position or orientation, be it homo, hetero, bi or even asexual. Accepting one's starting point is just the beginning. The spectrum of possibilities exists for all individuals. For many the starting position is enough. Others decide explore some or all of it. The choice to do so is up to each individual.

One's first job with respect to sexuality is to come to terms with one's starting point. From the various evidence I've seen, people do have a sexual orientation that is just "there." Whether it can be said to be genetic or early childhood experiences doesn't really matter since both are out of the control of the individual, at least by the point when he or she discovers which orientation they've gotten.

The ability to take control of one's sexuality can't really get underway until the starting point is revealed. I think if one is unhappy "being gay" one can become bi-sexual, but one is never going to erase that original starting point.

Edited to add for the record I do not consider consensual sexual experiences to be immoral, whether they involve a man & a woman, two men, two women or even more than two of either or both genders.

Edited by AllMenAreIslands
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jake,

It's not that the homosexual's choices with regard to sex are a-moral; it's that the fact of his homosexuality is a-moral. Considering the confusion surrounding this topic for millenia, I think it's important to be very specific about this.

--Dan Edge

Facts are a-moral. I don't believe there is much confusion about that, in the Objectivist world, and Peikoff most certainly wasn't ambiguous about that.

What there is confusion about is how much of a choice homosexuality is, and how much of a fact. Dr. Peikoff clearly said it is a fact, not a choice, in the sense that a person doesn't choose his sexual orientation.

However, he did, for example, appear to leave the door open to the possibility that it is a man-made fact, that a child can be raised to be a homosexual. In that sense, for example, a child's sexual orientation would be someone's (moral) choice.

I don't think that stating that "homosexuality is a-moral" would clear up confusions, but stating that "being a homosexual is not a choice, but an a-moral fact that cannot currently be changed" would.

I think that saying sexuality is not a choice is a form of biological or genetic determinism.

Saying that our genes determine some of our characteristics, like eye-color, is correct. The only difference is that we don't actually know that they determine our sexual orientation, so it would be incorrect to claim they do. I guess claiming that there's no other answer, but that genes determine sexuality, is indeed exactly that: determinism. (or plain ignorance, the inability to consider that there are other answers, besides just the two: genes and he's just being gay to piss off God)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

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 (a combination of physiological and genetic evidence support that claim).

Unlike many homosexuals, I am not promiscuous. That's a choice. Sex is a very important aspect to one's life, and I recognize that. It's the ultimate physical manifestation of my values and my sense of life - something that should not be treated lightly. That's a choice. What kind of man I find attractive is based on a combination of what I find to be valuable in a man: intelligence, strength (emotional and physical), and dominance to name a few. That criteria is something I have full control over. What I choose to value is an ethical choice, governed by ethical principles.

Simply put, sexual orientation is rooted in genetics and biology, but that doesn't determine one's values, thus man must still lead his life in an ethical fashion. The fact that homosexuality is something that develops outside of man's control does not imply that man's life is predetermined and that his choices do not matter.

As an aside, I'd posit that every human is somewhat bisexual. When I was very young (9 and 10) I was sexually attracted to one girl. However, my homosexuality became much more prominent as I became older and I have never felt a strong sexual attraction to another female since. I know many people who have had similar experiences, only reversed (i.e. a boy finds himself sexual attracted to another boy that may eventually disappear as the boy gets older). I think the cause is rather simple: physiologically, our bodies are capable of experiencing pleasure with either sex (man's prostate, nerve endings around the anus). To put another way, physiologically we are bisexual. Would it be wrong to assume that this physiological fluidity manifests itself in sexual orientation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the cause is rather simple: physiologically, our bodies are capable of experiencing pleasure with either sex (man's prostate, nerve endings around the anus).

It is important to keep the concepts clearly defined. Sexuality is not determined by what a person finds physically pleasurable but rather which sex they are attracted to and want to be intimate with. More bluntly, a man having anal sex with his wife is not a homosexual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What kind of man I find attractive is based on a combination of what I find to be valuable in a man: intelligence, strength (emotional and physical), and dominance to name a few.

Not to stir up anything, but this really sounds strange to me. A man can find "dominance" to be attractive? Your entire body as a man speaks dominance - that's the essential difference with the body of a woman. So, isn't it more logical to desire to express your own dominance, which means being attracted to someone whose body is structured to be dominated, ie the woman?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is important to keep the concepts clearly defined. Sexuality is not determined by what a person finds physically pleasurable but rather which sex they are attracted to and want to be intimate with. More bluntly, a man having anal sex with his wife is not a homosexual.

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..."

Edited by brandonk2009
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to stir up anything, but this really sounds strange to me. A man can find "dominance" to be attractive? Your entire body as a man speaks dominance - that's the essential difference with the body of a woman. So, isn't it more logical to desire to express your own dominance, which means being attracted to someone whose body is structured to be dominated, ie the woman?

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 between two people and they can share that role.

I think an example of this in Rand's own fiction is in Atlas Shrugged. During the first scene of Part I Chapter IX: The Sacred and the Profane, Dagny and Rearden wake up after having sex for the first time. Rearden is disgusted with himself and with Dagny, and he tells her. She laughs in his face and tells him that she is proud of what they did. "When he threw her down on the bed, their bodies met like the two sounds that broke against each other in the air of the room: the sound of his tortured moan and of her laughter." (hardcover ed. pg. 256) In this particular instance, Rearden rubs off as weaker than Dagny (not necessarily physically, but emotionally).

However, that is not the exact sense I was referring to when I said that I'm attracted to dominant men. Sexual dominance is just one aspect of what I was talking about, and it's minor compared to the other aspects involved. A dominant man is one who is assertive, powerful, and not easily conquered, not just in bed but in everyday life. I like a man, who like myself, prefers not to take orders but to give them. I suppose put another way, I like masculinity and I see no reason why I can't express my own masculinity in the arms of another man.

I'd be interested to hear what your thoughts are on masculinity and femininity in relation to sexuality. In Rand's published writing she really didn't elaborate a whole lot on what her views were in regards to this, but from what she did write I somewhat disagree.

Edited by brandonk2009
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey blackdiamond, do you hold that idea goes both ways? As in, do you think women attracted to men want to be "dominated" by men? If so, I can speak from this end of things at least to say that I have never had a desire for a partner to "dominate" over me. Granted being that I'm not just attracted to men I may not be the best example, but still, I think I shouldn't be totally outside the parameters on the subject. As far as body types go in that "speaking of dominance" thing, that reminds me, pretty much the only thing I find unattractive physically in another person aside from things that speak of ill health or immorality is people who are very muscular. It just makes me look and think, well first I think basically "yuck", but to expand on the reasoning behind that thought, it's something to the effect of, "Really? You find it worth that much time and energy investment to become that physically strong? But humans, no matter how much time they spend on it, just will never be as strong as many other animals. But that's not a terrible thing! We're the RATIONAL animal. We need to take care of our bodies, they're a necessary part of us, yes, but our primary way to survive and thrive is our intelligence. We aren't generally an incredibly strong species, but we don't need to be - we make tools to take care of all that brute strength junk, to do it quicker and better without wasting so much time and energy and pains on making our bodies so strong so we can instead go on to do other and more things." This is not so say I have some desire to be "the dominant one" in a relationship either though. Really, I prefer to just not have issues of there being dominance in a relationship generally. I prefer to have people who are equals in their relation to each other just as they are moral equals, to have nobody trying to "run the show" over anybody else. At least not as a typical characteristic of the interaction between each other.

Now as for this line from Brandon, "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." Haha! XD It always makes me laugh a little how when the issues of sexuality and gender come up people just seem to not remember so many things that are otherwise usually so obvious. Women most certainly can be the more active or stronger partner in any sexual occurrence where they are involved. First of all, "woman on top", surely I'm not the only one to have ever heard of it. Next, what about oral sex where the dynamics are different than typical vaginal intercourse or how about if she's doing the male partner with a strap on? And surely the fact that many lesbians can and do have sex with each other shows that there are ways women can be not just always waiting for somebody else to take charge. And besides, I know I've heard many times about complaints from heterosexual men when they think their female partner is too submissive in bed, that they "just lay there." A partner who is not responsive enough and doesn't do enough to pursue things themselves, who just seem to wait on the other person to do all the action, is not generally what it seems most heterosexual men want from what I've heard. It seems like you're uninterested and/or lazy if you aren't taking initiative to try to go after the other person too.

As a final note though too on how I don't think you can say being attracted to males or females is simply about dominance, not saying anything about the moral status of this, but there are people who as a sort of fetish want to be the "dominant" or the "submissive" in a relationship. There are many of the heterosexual men among these people who want to be the submissive one and there are many heterosexual females who want to be the dominant one. There are many non-bisexuals who like to do either role at different times too. So overall, I don't think appealing to body types and some kind of dominance issue in relation to it works for explaining sexuality at all. Maybe some people do want to dominate or be dominated, do find such appealing in a body type or not, but I don't think it relates directly to their own body type.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firstly, Brandon, I must say it is refreshing to talk to a homosexual person who doesn't seem too sensitive when met with an opposing view.

As for dominance in sex, I think that the man is definitely the dominant one (between man and woman); as you have agreed, his very body "speaks dominance." So, he is the one with the right tools for that job, basically.

Even in those times when a woman is apparently dominating, she is really just being permitted. The man can still take over any time he decides to (which is why he can even rape a woman if she says "no"), something we can't reasonably say about the woman. This means that even when she appears to be dominating, he is still the one dominating; sort of the same way a CEO can allow his CFO to lead an executive meeting (while he is also present). It doesn't change anything.

I suppose put another way, I like masculinity and I see no reason why I can't express my own masculinity in the arms of another man.

A woman, being the physically weaker being, has lived with a psychology that makes her appreciate the symbolic protection offered by being "in the arms of a man," even if momentarily. It's the strength embodied by the more muscular physiology of the man that makes her feel calm, safe, protected; a sense of assurance, a moment of relief at the fact that she now has a being that is strong joining her permanently.

I really don't think it makes logical sense for a man to similarly yearn to be in "the arms of another man."

Of course if you have an alternative formulation for the psychology of why you think women love to be in the arms of a man, I'll be glad to hear it, with an inclusion of how you think the same psychology works for a man who desires the same.

I'd be interested to hear what your thoughts are on masculinity and femininity in relation to sexuality. In Rand's published writing she really didn't elaborate a whole lot on what her views were in regards to this, but from what she did write I somewhat disagree.

Basically the way I've expressed it above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey blackdiamond, do you hold that idea goes both ways? As in, do you think women attracted to men want to be "dominated" by men? If so, I can speak from this end of things at least to say that I have never had a desire for a partner to "dominate" over me. Granted being that I'm not just attracted to men I may not be the best example, but still...

I was about to be surprised, until you wrote that last bit!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a final note though too on how I don't think you can say being attracted to males or females is simply about dominance, not saying anything about the moral status of this, but there are people who as a sort of fetish want to be the "dominant" or the "submissive" in a relationship. There are many of the heterosexual men among these people who want to be the submissive one and there are many heterosexual females who want to be the dominant one.

Fetishes are irrational.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn it, I tried to say I shouldn't be totally discounted because I'm not attracted exclusively to men. ;_; I had many more objections to offer than just my personal tastes and even then, I am not lesbian either so it isn't as if I can't find anything in men attractive. Not by a long shot.

"Even in those times when a woman is apparently dominating, she is really just being permitted. The man can still take over any time he decides to (which is why he can even rape a woman if she says "no"), something we can't reasonably say about the woman." Do you believe you live by permission because somebody else could shoot you and kill you yet hasn't? Do you really think you want to define sexuality and gender issues by ability to rape? Men can and have been raped by women anyway though. Generally though hasn't it been found that rape is not really about wanting to have sex with somebody though anyway so much as it is a power trip based on trying to make somebody else feel helpless. People aren't not raping their partners just out of courtesy and/or to humor the partner with delusions of power. And again, besides, humans don't need to just be about body types to take control of a situation - weapons of various types can easily make up for differences in physical strength.

"A woman, being the physically weaker being, has lived with a psychology that makes her appreciate the symbolic protection offered by being 'in the arms of a man,' even if momentarily." I am indeed a weakling. I know this. I can't open jars just with my own hands often. However, humans being what they are, I have a great tool to fix this problem. A jar opener solves this for me. There are so many weapons in existence for humans I'm not living in fear of people with greater physical strength. No amount of greater physical strength matters much if we're in a sniper battle for example or if they're coming at me bare handed but I manage to stab them in a vital organ before they can do much to me. So, the "symbol" of a physically stronger being doing protection is empty. Somebody who may be really smart, like a doctor, may offer much greater protection to my life if I was looking to feel like I was with somebody who could offer me additional protection. However, on the other hand in a similar fashion, I'd like to know I could help further secure the well being of somebody I cared about a lot, so I would want to see it as a situation where each of us can offer additional protection to each other's well being and I don't see physical strength as being meaningful that way. I don't think it makes logical sense for ANYBODY to yearn to be specifically "in the arms of a man" as a physically stronger being for a sense of increased security.

Edit: "Fetish" was the best word I could think of at the time, but I'm unsure of if it is the exact right word. It is something I think seems fishy, but it isn't something which has much good psychological research done on it and the general gist of things seems to be that for these people, it is just something they reeeally like, which usually has to do with a romantic relationship and/or sexual dynamic for them. I am not 100% sure of what to make of it at this time though since there are also people who find pregnant women very attractive while I find it really creepy. So as long as there are people here who will contend that having dominant and submissive partners in relationships at all is a fine thing, I'm not setting in stone yet total condemnation that for these people who like it more than most that it must be wrong. Unless you want to go back and change your argument and say that this whole dominance business is just always screwy for everybody and anybody? I think it is either bad for everybody or fine for anybody at least in moderation, I see no good argument for why it simply is only fine in the case of the woman being the submissive one and the man being the dominant one. So what if you think it matches their body types. We aren't just about body types. Aside from people harassing those who don't fit the prescribed way, I don't see how it hurts to have a more dominant personality in what is deemed a more submissive body type generally for example when we have the brains to make ways to make up for that weaker form rendering it moot.

Edited by bluecherry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was about to be surprised, until you wrote that last bit!

Prepare to be surprised. I am a female who likes men, currently in a longstanding relationship, and I find your description of female sexual psychology fits me not at all. Nor is it my experience of love. If anything, I could be construed to be the dominant one in the relationship, at least in terms of defining its direction. Lest you seek to place me in the "fetishist" category, I think my sexual interests are more or less typical, if a bit excessive on the appetite side of things.

There is not "man" and "woman". There are only men and women. Until we get this ridiculous Platonic essentialism out of the way we think about sex and gender this argument is never going to go away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you believe you live by permission because somebody else could shoot you and kill you yet hasn't? Do you really think you want to define sexuality and gender issues by ability to rape?

Bluecherry, how could you take something that I just threw into parentheses (), a by-the-way statement on rape, as the basis for my entire definition of "sexuality and gender issues"? Perhaps you misunderstood the whole statement. The man "can still take over when he decides to" was referring to taking over (or taking back) the dominance being exercised by the woman during the act of sex; it was not referring to rape. To use my analogy again, it would be like the CEO taking back his seat after "permitting" the CFO to take it temporarily during a meeting.

And by the way, there is a very good reason why rape of women by men is a common, daily occurrence while woman-on-man rape (especially one woman) requires some googling for you to find those instances when it did happen (if we can technically even call it that, given the physiology of the sexual organs). That was the only incidental point about rape.

I am indeed a weakling. I know this. I can't open jars just with my own hands often. However, humans being what they are, I have a great tool to fix this problem. A jar opener solves this for me...There are so many weapons in existence for humans I'm not living in fear of people with greater physical strength.

No one was talking about how to fix this problem. I was explaining what I think is the source of this very common feeling in women. Even on a non-sexual plane, a woman who has just been terrified or something (maybe by a bad dream or even something real) seems to appreciate being hugged and I think it helps a bit more if the hugger is male, and even more if it is the husband. I don't know many men who would have a desire to be hugged by anyone upon experiencing a terrifying dream, for example. It would be OK, but not really that helpful. [but I would be curious to know how you feel about that, Brandonk.]

You can of course buy a gun for your protection as a woman, but this won't make much of a difference after meeting a killer in your dream or when you happen to see a dead body in your wardrobe, and so on. The reassuring hug of a naturally stronger being can be all it takes to make you feel secure and safe again from those ghastly killers that came in your nightmare!

If you have a different explanation for why these kinds of desires exist in (most) women, I'd like to hear it so that we can compare the two theories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anything, I could be construed to be the dominant one in the relationship, at least in terms of defining its direction.

I wasn't talking about defining direction of relationship.

There is not "man" and "woman". There are only men and women. Until we get this ridiculous Platonic essentialism out of the way we think about sex and gender this argument is never going to go away.

I'm not sure I understand this. Would you classify Ayn Rand's statements on the issue as "Platonic essentialism?" (I'm not intimidating you with that question, I just want to be clear what you mean and how far it applies.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...