Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Homosexuality vs. Heterosexuality

Rate this topic


RationalEgoistSG

Recommended Posts

Well, that may have been said but what then are the other factors? They are not described in this thread and not in the essays Betsy was kind enough to send along.

Then all I can say is that you have not understood the arguments presented at all.

Look, I bowed out of this whole discussion earlier because I had no interest in arguing with people about this and trying to convince them through what I see as an impenetrable barrier. I only came back to make a specific point of fact, not to discuss the whole issue. And, I am just going to leave it at that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Then all I can say is that you have not understood the arguments presented at all.

Look, I bowed out of this whole discussion earlier because I had no interest in arguing with people about this and trying to convince them through what I see as an impenetrable barrier. I only came back to make a specific point of fact, not to discuss the whole issue. And, I am just going to leave it at that.

I can't understand arguments that haven't been presented and there aren't any other arguments save that women are physically vulnerable. If there is more I am missing then I'd like to hear them; if there isn't any more but you feel it should be enough then say so.

Don't mistake disagreement for misunderstanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According the Department of Justice, the percentage of women who have of been victims of rape/attempted rape during their lifetime is 17.6% For men it's 3%, and it is believed that male rape is reported only 1% of the time.  An uncomfortably large number, but hardly "normal".

I see that I'm thinking of "abnormal" in a different way then you are. I'm thinking more of the "abnatural" way... what I mean is: rape may be statistically rare in modern America but it is in no way un-natural.

In an environment where there is little law and order rape would be rather common, in fact my understand of the history of sex would seem to indicate that our modern day number of rapes is a hisotoric anomoly and if taken in the long view is actually "abnormal" because it is so low.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no "need, " "shoulds," or "has to be's" about it.  There is only an IS.  Males ARE in control of sexual activity.  If HE isn't aroused, there is no sexual activity.  SHE can fake it, but HE can't.  He can LET her take control -- if HE chooses.

"Because of sexual physiology, the male is the initiator and the chooser.

His consent is required.  Hers isn't.  If she isn't willing, she can be

raped. If he isn't willing, nothing happens.  He chooses.  She *is

chosen*." (Sexual Surrender essay)

What does any of this have to do with a rational consensual relationship? In such a relationship, rape isn't an issue, and both partners must choose each other. I agree with jfortun; there have been no arguments presented that do not ultimately seem to rest on the possibility of rape. If there is some other argument, I would like to hear it.

edited to add the following: In any case, I know I am hetero but am not any closer to knowing why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does any of this have to do with a rational consensual relationship? In such a relationship, rape isn't an issue, and both partners must choose each other. I agree with jfortun; there have been no arguments presented that do not ultimately seem to rest on the possibility of rape. If there is some other argument, I would like to hear it.

The argument is that, for the above cited reasons, a woman has to be darned sure she IS in a RATIONAL consensual relationship with a trustworthy man -- for reasons that don't apply to men with respect to women.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK; I agree. It is much more important for a woman to be able to trust a man than vice versa. However, we also I think agree that this trust is mostly or entirely related to sex. There might be parts of the relationship where the man is more vulnerable, such as cooking.

Now, how is this related to heterosexuality vs homosexuality? I would think that a lot of women would prefer to be in a relationship where they do not have to worry about sexual trust issues, and thus might prefer to be gay if they had a choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The argument is that, for the above cited reasons, a woman has to be darned sure she IS in a RATIONAL consensual relationship with a trustworthy man -- for reasons that don't apply to men with respect to women.

But if the man isn't darned sure that he is with the right woman, how can it be a rational relationship. Shouldn't the trust in a rational relationship be equal on both sides?

BTW, you said that a man chooses and a woman is chosen. But didn't Dagny choose between three men the man she thought was best for her?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if the man isn't darned sure that he is with the right woman, how can it be a rational relationship. Shouldn't the trust in a rational relationship be equal on both sides?

Both men and women are psychologically vulnerable in a relationship, but I was speaking from the point of view of physical vulnerability.

BTW, you said that a man chooses and a woman is chosen. But didn't Dagny choose between three men the man she thought was best for her?

She chose among three men who chose her first. If the man she wanted wasn't interested in her, there would be nothing she could do about -- except resign herself to unrequited love. See Ayn Rand's short story, "The Husband I Bought," in The Early Ayn Rand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if the man isn't darned sure that he is with the right woman, how can it be a rational relationship.

It can't, but why does this matter? The point is that the woman is psychologically compelled to be careful in her choice of men if she has the least bit of self-respect, while the man isn't. The necessity of choosing the right partner is there with both sexes, but a woman learns about this necessity as soon as she learns about the nature of sexual intercourse, while a man will only arrive at this conclusion after a long train of rational thought about his life and the proper role of a woman in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It can't, but why does this matter? The point is that the woman is psychologically compelled to be careful in her choice of men if she has the least bit of self-respect, while the man isn't. The necessity of choosing the right partner is there with both sexes, but a woman learns about this necessity as soon as she learns about the nature of sexual intercourse, while a man will only arrive at this conclusion after a long train of rational thought about his life and the proper role of a woman in it.

I find the first part of your answer to be somewhat confusing. What do you mean by psychologically compelled? If she has the least bit of self-respect, isn't at least this much something that she earned through the same means that she will use in her choice of men? I see way too much varience of behaviour to see any evidence of psychological compelling. It could be said that a woman that chooses to think and be rational will develop a sense of self respect that will reinforce the behaviour.

A case could be made, and the second part of your answer is what led me to it. That the "compelling" you are referring to is the fact that the woman's vulnerability is an immediate and concrete fact, it is presently perceivable. The very act of sexual penetration is that fact, I would say in essential form that includes others.

All of the male's vulnerabilities are abstract, they can and do take concrete physical form, but not with the same immediacy as the female. You might get this woman pregnant, but that is not an effect experieced at that moment. Nor is a disease.

Is this what has been meant by the whole vulnerabilty issue? Is it an aspect of it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could put it this way if it helps: The woman is careful about whom to sleep with because of her emotions. The man is careful about whom to sleep with because of his rational conclusions.

Why so? Because any normal woman's emotions will IMMEDIATELY reflect the necessity of being careful in her choice, given the readily apparent threats she would face if she made the wrong choice. For a man, on the other hand, there are no immediately apparent threats in sleeping with any old woman; he needs to do a lot of thinking (and experiencing) to see the negative consequences of doing so.

To give an analogy: You don't need much thinking to know that you shouldn't chop off your finger with an axe; the emotions you experience at the thought of doing so readily compel you to abstain. You do need a lot of thinking, though, to arrive at the conclusion that you shouldn't chop down the sapling in the supermarket's parking lot without the owner's permission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CF: Good explanation. That does help clarify the nature of male-female relationships. How, though, does it relate to the claim that only male-female relationships are proper? In a homosexual relationship the trust issue would likely not even arise.

Both men and women are psychologically vulnerable in a relationship, but I was speaking from the point of view of physical vulnerability.

She chose among three men who chose her first.  If the man she wanted wasn't interested in her, there would be nothing she could do about -- except resign herself to unrequited love.  See Ayn Rand's short story, "The Husband I Bought," in The Early Ayn Rand.

So three men chose Dagny and she chose one of them. There was nothing the other two men could do about it except resign themselves to unrequited love. I'm not seeing a male-female difference here. No matter how many people are involved, or who choses who first, there will only be a romantic relationship between two people who chose each other. Men can be rejected just as women can. Even if the man always chooses first, the woman's acceptance is equally necessary for the relationship to proceed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no "need, " "shoulds," or "has to be's" about it.  There is only an IS.  Males ARE in control of sexual activity.  If HE isn't aroused, there is no sexual activity.  SHE can fake it, but HE can't.  He can LET her take control -- if HE chooses.

Couple points:

It is harder to do, but a woman can rape a man. The man can be restrained by force, and he can be aroused by force. And a woman can rape him. Once force enters the equation, the force-initiator, whatever that person's sex, is the one in control. The victim is the victim and simply suffers or finds a way to fight back.

Males are better at raping PEOPLE (including other men), because they are strong and, once the victim has been subdued, the male attacker requires no special equipment to perform the crime. Men are naturally equiped to perform rape. But this does not prove that, absent the use of force, men are in "control of sex."

Absent the use of force, couples mutually agree upon sex. Both parties are in control. Yes, erection is a necessary condition of intercourse, but that does not negate the fact that both lovers are fundamentally in control of the situation at hand. If the woman absolutely does not want sex, then it won't happen in a voluntary relationship. Mutual consent must be met. Free will exists.

Only after each person has given consent does the physical aspect enter the picture. And that is rarely a problem when two healthy people get together. So, if by "control" you mean that an erection is necessary to have normal intercourse, then I agree. But if by "control" you mean that the man alone decides whether sex will happen, then I disagree. The woman also has a say.

I also want to point out that both sexual partners need to be able to trust the other. Trust is an issue with men, just like it is with women. We need to be able to trust that our woman won't do something to us in our sleep or poison our food or hire someone to kill us. Basically, both the man and the woman need to trust the other not to use force. Rape is only an example of using force. In my view, it doesn't mean that women need to trust men more than men need to trust women.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

First, I'm a newbie and this is my first post. Second, pardon my intrusion on such a lengthy post, but a something struck me as odd.

The question posed earlier was: Is homosexuality biological/innate?

Of course the answer must be "No". Evolution dictates that a counter-speciel (sp) trait will be eliminated (so does commonsense). What trait could be more counter-speciel than homosexuality?

Am I missing something obvious here? Was this answer posted somewhere in the 600 previous posts?

Seems like the homosexual "gene" would die out pretty quick to me. Also seems that "random mutations" would be unlikely to cause homosexuality on such a wide scale basis.

In my mind, this also answers the "morality" question - man OUGHT to perpetuate his own species. However, I agree with Ms. Rand that government ought not involve itself in such matters.

Thank

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course the answer must be "No".  Evolution dictates that a counter-speciel (sp) trait will be eliminated (so does commonsense).  What trait could be more counter-speciel than homosexuality?

...

Seems like the homosexual "gene" would die out pretty quick to me.  Also seems that "random mutations" would be unlikely to cause homosexuality on such a wide scale basis.

If homosexuals were unable to reproduce children than you'd be right. But they can, and frequently do. As homosexuality has spent most of its time throughout history in the closet (ahem!), it is no surprise that the gene lives on. Assuming there is a gene, anyway.

Genetics are not the only way to explain why homosexuality may occur without choice. Early childhood experiences could help shape sexuality and cement it to such a degree that it is not really a choice and cannot be changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it is true that homosexuals can in fact reproduce children, then why do we have different sexes? Wait, if I'm not mistaken somebody already posted that they cannot have children, homosexual couples merely "piggyback" off of heterosexual mating. Also, I don't know if this has been brought up already, but you almost never see homosexuality in other animals, do you? The reason homosexuality has not died out so readily is because humans are allowing homosexuals to "piggyback" off of heterosexuals. My question is do homosexuals breed homosexuals? Is there statistics about what sexual preference kids of homosexual parents have?

PS. I haven't completely read all the other pages, so my apologies if I asked a question that has already been answered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question posed earlier was: Is homosexuality biological/innate?

Of course the answer must be "No".  Evolution dictates that a counter-speciel (sp) trait will be eliminated (so does commonsense).  What trait could be more counter-speciel than homosexuality?

Seems like the homosexual "gene" would die out pretty quick to me.  Also seems that "random mutations" would be unlikely to cause homosexuality on such a wide scale basis.

In my mind, this also answers the "morality" question - man OUGHT to perpetuate his own species.  However, I agree with Ms. Rand that government ought not involve itself in such matters.

Thank

It's not obvious, but you are misunderstanding and oversimplifying evolutionary theory. Do some reading about inheritance of recessive traits.

Also, it's possible homosexuality is caused by exposure to abnormal levels of sex hormones in the uterus, so evolutionary selection would not be relevant.

On the last point, it does not follow that just because we have some capability we must use it. Lots of people choose not to have kids because they prefer to spend their time and energy on other values; there is nothing immoral about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Well this has to be the longest thread Ive ever encountered. I have scanned through all 28 pages and I believe I do have a contribution to the discussion.

The Nature/Nuture dichotomy is fallacious.

There are a number of examples where characteristics are coded for by a few genes, or even one gene - but it has been observered ever since the founding of genetics through Mendel and his pea experiments that the larger the number of genes involved in a trait the greater the enviroment influence is.

The phenomenon is know as epistasis - if you affect the production/replication of one gene, even one base pair on a strand of DNA you can have a massive effect on the collective expression of a trait.

On to my point; there is more than likely some degree of genetic susceptibility for homosexuality - it is more than likely tied in with hormone production and development of body and brain; However just because X has a larger SUSCEPTIBILITY; does not mean he necessarily ends up expressing it. Environmental factors, and in this case I believe quite obviously - psychological ones, could lead an individual Y to experience homosexuality, even though he has less susceptibility than X. X may have grown up in such a way that the idea never entered his mind; just as Y might have had very little experience of the female anatomy or ideas relating to it in his development.

Now we do not know the degree to which genetic susceptibilities, developmental conditions and social factors affect this; and is unlikely to be particularly uniform in any event. It shows a poor understanding of the factors involved to asert any one uniform cause or balance of factors for homosexuality.

There is an interesting conclusion that can be drawn from this; we all have the potential to be gay; if you havn't experienced homosexual desires by the time your 30 and you have a low genetic susceptibility its highly unlikely you would begin to do so; the chance is neglible; and it gets lower as you age. But those closer to the middle ground could concievably change tastes - bisexuality is becoming an increasingly common phenomenon.

However; I would observe that you can draw patterns as to its psychological origins where they exist - and predictably a societies conception of gender determines whether a homosexual is likely to be a moral person. In ancient Greece it would not be uncommon to find a perfectly decent free thinking man who happily experienced both male and female bodies in a sexual manner; it might be less likely in society where sexual ambiguity was complete taboo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On to my point; there is more than likely some degree of genetic susceptibility for homosexuality - it is more than likely tied in with hormone production and development of body and brain; However just because X has a larger SUSCEPTIBILITY; does not mean he necessarily ends up expressing it. Environmental factors, and in this case I believe quite obviously - psychological ones, could lead an individual Y to experience homosexuality, even though he has less susceptibility than X. X may have grown up in such a way that the idea never entered his mind; just as Y might have had very little experience of the female anatomy or ideas relating to it in his development.

The problem is that Objectivism seems to deny any possibility of genetic susceptibility for homosexuality or any other value-related issue. It would supposedly deny man's volitional nature.

I'm curious about whether anyone can explain how, when, and why they decided to be heterosexual. I know I didn't make a volitional choice; I just am.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point. Objectivist pertain to realize the reality of a situation in the best way possible when forming a view or making choice. The reality is we are not detached from causality and factors beyond volition do affect our choices. The power to make better informed choices and to establish a higher level of consciousness and and self-respect is to always ask 'why?'. If you fail to make the attempt to ask what is affecting your judgement; how valuable can your judgement be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand considered homosexuality to be immoral and a result of faulty premises. She must therefore have considered it to something within the realm of volitional choice. This is consistent with her view that man is born as a conceptual blank slate and must develop his values rather than having them come automatically as they do with animals.

Now if homosexuality is even influenced by genetics, then it is not volitional and Ayn Rand was mistaken. But that calls into question the whole blank slate idea. It really makes no sense to me that a chimpanzee supposedly has no volition whatsoever, yet we with only 3% difference in our genes have 100% volition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Q: This questioner says she read somewhere that you consider all forms of homosexuality immoral. If this is so, why?

A: Because it involves psychological flaws, corruptions, errors, or unfortunate premises, but there is a psychological immorality at the root of homosexuality. Therefore I regard it as immoral. But I do not believe that the government has the right to prohibit it. It is the privilege of any individual to use his sex life in whichever way he wants it. That's his legal right, provided he is not forcing it on anyone. And therefore the idea that it's proper among consenting adults is the proper formulation legally. Morally it is immoral, and more than that, if you want my really sincere opinion, it is disgusting.

Ayn Rand, "The Moratorium on Brains -- Q&A," lecture session taped at the Ford Hall Forum, 1971.

source: http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/bio/biofaq.html#Q5.2.6

However, this source also quotes Harry Binswanger:

"I asked her privately (circa 1980) specifically whether she thought it was immoral. She said that we didn't know enough about the development of homosexuality in a person's psychology to say that it would have to involve immorality."

That seems much more rational, yet many Objectivists seem to hold the former view, whether sincerely or just because that's what they think AR thought.

As for proof that sexual orientation exists, it seems pretty obvious by introspection.

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...