Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Homosexuality vs. Heterosexuality

Rate this topic


RationalEgoistSG

Recommended Posts

Don't go all postmodernism on my ass, I said and meant no nature above reason.
I misunderstood your question -- my fault. Your question doesn't make any sense in this context. Man must use that highest aspect of his nature to grasp his lower aspects, and figure out what the life-enhancing choices are. Some people have claimed that it's always "man does woman". It isn't relevant what man's highest nature is, because the question reduces to a simple question of fact about human nature.
If we can make something somehow that would course it so we wont die when we are dropped into boiling oil that 'nature' of dieing when we are dropped in boiling oil could become as redundant as walking outside without protection (shoes) of your feet whose 'nature' is to get cut and bleed if you step on something sharp.
No, not really. A cow can't jump over the moon, either. You have to deal with reality as it is, not how you could imagine it. If homosexual intercourse is in fact a self-destructive act, it is thereby immoral.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If homosexual intercourse is in fact a self-destructive act, it is thereby immoral.

And in 61 pages I couldn't find any evidence of it.

Is heterosexual promiscuous sex self destructive? yes, clearly. Is heterosexual strictly reproductory sex self destructive? perhaps even more so.

Now, is heterosexual "sodomy" , now that our new friend brought it up, inmoral even inside a straight romantic relationship?

Sodomy is not nature's way of doing business but it also happens among straight couples: according to the theories on why homosexuality would be inmoral, then even heterosexual romantic love if includes contra-natura relations would be as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your question doesn't make any sense in this context.

How doesn't it? :pimp:

You have to deal with reality as it is, not how you could imagine it.

If homosexuality is in fact an act of mutual benefit, it is thereby moral.

If homosexual intercourse is in fact a self-destructive act, it is thereby immoral.

You have to deal with reality as it is, not as you could imagine it.

Edited by FrolicsomeQuipster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sodomy is not nature's way of doing business
I should have noted this one before. What the heck does that even mean? Nature doesn't have a way of doing business. Nature isn't a volitional being; man is not a beast ruled by the law of the jungle (there isn't any such law anyhow). I can't even make sense of the idea that there is some abstract and intrinsic "way of doing business". I don't think you should even be granting that level of legitimacy to the notion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to deal with reality as it is, not as you could imagine it.
What are you talking about? David did not say that there was anything immoral about homosexuality, nor that it was against man's nature or anything like that. He was simply explaining why this thread is under ethics, not aesthetics. The basic question being posed in this thread is whether homosexuality is moral by Objectivist standards, i.e. whether it is in accordance with man's nature in some sense. So, the topic belongs in ethics. Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should have noted this one before. What the heck does that even mean? Nature doesn't have a way of doing business. Nature isn't a volitional being; man is not a beast ruled by the law of the jungle (there isn't any such law anyhow). I can't even make sense of the idea that there is some abstract and intrinsic "way of doing business". I don't think you should even be granting that level of legitimacy to the notion.

What I obviously meant was that every argument by Objectivists denouncing homosexuality stems from the natural "self-evident" anatomical compatibility between a man and a woman, leaving out the posibility that a man and a woman undergoing a romantic relationship might not even use that compatibility in some instances!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, Volco, most such arguments rely on the mental differences of men and women. Anatomy is usually mentioned in a secondary/supportive role; the claim is that women have a psychological a need to be pursued and cared for by a pursuer/caretaker who must necessarily be a man.

Edited by FeatherFall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, Volco, most such arguments rely on the mental differences of men and women. Anatomy is usually mentioned in a secondary/supportive role; the claim is that women have a psychological a need to be pursued and cared for by a pursuer/caretaker who must necessarily be a man.
I second this.

I'm going to boldly claim that this order of arguments, first appealing to the mind's mysterious differences between the sexes, rendering same-sex romance impossible, followed by an appeal to incompatible anatomy, rendering it even less possible, makes perfect sense: the argument against homosexuality in this (endless) thread is just a rationalization. It ignores observable facts (such as perfectly working homosexual romances, all over the place, and perfectly workable sexual activities), for already-established but unproven (ie. can't be traced back to actual things that happen in reality, or can't be shown to be relevant to sexuality) concepts (man is born tabula rasa, man has no automated knowledge, man is "properly" to be "worshiped," and furthermore, how could that ever happen with two men?). Pure rationalism. The facts don't add up, but insistence persists!

Edited by JASKN
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should say that the kind of relationship I described (the relationship some claim is the only moral one) seems to be a perfectly reasonable way to have a romance. It could be psychologically fulfilling for many couples. I simply don't see it as the only moral romantic relationship.

Edited by FeatherFall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The basic question being posed in this thread is whether homosexuality is moral by Objectivist standards.

Ooh sorry. :worry:

But shouldn't the question be placed in a context in that case? :thumbsup:

So, the topic belongs in ethics.

I thought that if it as a act done for the enjoyment of itself is placed in a context it would have been a aesthetic one, I thought the answer to it being "self destructive" or not was as obvious as stated by JASKN. :pirate:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought that if it as a act done for the enjoyment of itself is placed in a context it would have been a aesthetic one, I thought the answer to it being "self destructive" or not was as obvious as stated by JASKN.
Since Rand herself found homosexuality to be disgusting and thought that it results from mistaken premises, it's clearly not obvious. It is also not self-evident that smoking is bad for you, but we now understand that it is. So wielding the broadsword of self-evidentiality results in no intellectual advances. The proper response to a claim about man's nature is to actually look at the evidence, to see the proof that universally, it is the nature of the male to swive a female. The only argument (actual argument, as opposed to just asserting "It's self evident"), are the equipment and species-continuation arguments, which really fall apart pretty quickly.

Just invoking "context" does not reduce "acts done for enjoyment" to aesthetics. An example is using meth -- whatever the context mixed with it, meth use is not a valid aethetic choice. Nor is racial hatred.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So do these 61 pages conclude that we should reject the hero/hero-worshipper argument altogether? If not, what of it? Or do we simply conclude that there can be heroes and hero worshippers in homosexual relationships? If so, could one then argue that any homosexual relationship that doesn't have the stressing of hero and worshipper is somehow immoral, or less than optimal?

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, Volco, most such arguments rely on the mental differences of men and women. Anatomy is usually mentioned in a secondary/supportive role; the claim is that women have a psychological a need to be pursued and cared for by a pursuer/caretaker who must necessarily be a man.

That is just asinine, that's why I replied to those comments with "until you can slice open enough brains..." . Ayn Rand when formulating her theory on sexuality never relied on biological differences on man's and woman's brains because she didn't have the methods - she drew it out of what is anatomically self-evident, natural. I agree with hero-worhshipping but one can't say that a woman can only be dominated and pursued by a man for being born a woman. Maybe this woman's psyche wants to be pursued and protected by a fellow but dintint woman. Individuals of the same genre might be quiet different between them.

So do these 61 pages conclude that we should reject the hero/hero-worshipper argument altogether? If not, what of it? Or do we simply conclude that there can be heroes and hero worshippers in homosexual relationships? If so, could one then argue that any homosexual relationship that doesn't have the stressing of hero and worshipper is somehow immoral, or less than optimal?

The only way to conclude the issue is to reduce the question to whether one's own sexual orientation is a matter of choice, and therefore subject to moral judgement and deserving to be on "Ethics". I think it is self-evident that gay people don't chose homosexuality in the same way that straight people don't chose heterosexuality, or pyromaniacs don't really chose at an early age to be turned on by fire. If any of you think it is a matter of choice, then please back it up with scientific work. A similar topic in "Psychology" would nonetheless last for a few more years. I am sure this issue will be clarified with more sound scientific data in the next decades. I don't think it is a coincidence that Ayn Rand didn't write extensively on the subject. She was rigorous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So do these 61 pages conclude that we should reject the hero/hero-worshipper argument altogether?
I think there's been enough discussion to make a conclusion. I've made mine.

Or do we simply conclude that there can be heroes and hero worshippers in homosexual relationships?

I think there can be a hero and a worshipper in a homosexual relationship. I also think that a more equitable "reciprocal worship" can be more psychologically fulfilling for some people, gay or otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there can be a hero and a worshipper in a homosexual relationship. I also think that a more equitable "reciprocal worship" can be more psychologically fulfilling for some people, gay or otherwise.

I had always hoped that the homosexuality debate would help some folks to see the errors in/let go of the whole hero-worshipper definition of femininity or reject that model of a romantic relationship as the ideal. For me personally, I am a woman and I have never, ever experienced romance that way. I don't desire to look up to anyone. I'm my own hero and that's how I like it. I am hetero and I am in a longstanding relationship with a wonderful fellow who I love deeply. But the idea of looking up to him as some kind of hero seems completely strange and discordant to our relationship. Our love is built on mutual respect and admiration. We do have different roles in some regards, but that has nothing to do with our gender. Rather it is simply that each of us takes charge in the areas in which we excel and support the other in some of the areas where they may be lacking (of course the vast majority of our skills and beliefs overlap to such a degree that we just work together). Not at all to be presumptuous, but simply to illustrate a point, I see some parallels between our relationship and the marriage of Ayn Rand and Frank O'Connor. To be honest I have never seen how Rand's description of ideal romance and sexuality match up with her actual real-life marriage. She was clearly the dominant partner by nearly any standard one can factually verify without being indecent or prurient. Don't get me wrong, I agree with Rand on many other of her arguments regarding romance. I fully accept that one's lover must reflect one's highest values, that an ideal relationship should be long-term, that one must be sexually selective, and that an egoist who loves and knows how to take care of herself is in the best position to love and take care of someone else. I just want to throw more or less her entire theory of gender in romance out the window. I think that at minimum a minority of Objectivists, say maybe 20%, feel as I do on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My relationship is the same way. I admire women who are stronger than the typical ultra-girly paragon of femininity. While I often play the "traditional" proactive male role, I couldn't stomach a relationship that made this its "essence".

I don't know that you can say any Objectivists feel the same way you do about relationships. If Rand's views on the matter are part of her philosophy (not an application or misapplication of it) then anyone who disagrees with her is not an Objectivist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know that you can say any Objectivists feel the same way you do about relationships. If Rand's views on the matter are part of her philosophy (not an application or misapplication of it) then anyone who disagrees with her is not an Objectivist.

You may be correct on this point. I hadn't thought about that. If that is the case, I wonder how its integration with the rest of her philosophy, which I do not understand well, could be made more explicit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that is the case, I wonder how its integration with the rest of her philosophy, which I do not understand well, could be made more explicit.
If anyone is up for this challenge, that is, to build from the ground up (perceivable facts in reality), on to Rand's working theory, that is, "chewing" the topic, I for one would love to read it. It would be the perfect kind of discussion for the tail end of this thread.

How did Rand arrive at her male/female gender roles? Can it be proven as integrated into the rest of her philosophy? What is the proof, what are the logical steps, from beginning to end?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest I have never seen how Rand's description of ideal romance and sexuality match up with her actual real-life marriage. She was clearly the dominant partner by nearly any standard one can factually verify without being indecent or prurient.

What facts are you reffering to?

Can it[gender roles] be proven as integrated into the rest of her philosophy?

Yes. The relationship between Dagny and John Galt is one example(actually all her relationships are good examples, but the later was the most fulfilling), Roark and Dominique another. I don't have the books at hand right now so I can't quote specific passages, but if you take a look i'm sure you will find what i'm talking about. It should also be taken into account that she has explicitly stated her views on gender roles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. The relationship between Dagny and John Galt is one example(actually all her relationships are good examples, but the later was the most fulfilling), Roark and Dominique another. I don't have the books at hand right now so I can't quote specific passages, but if you take a look i'm sure you will find what i'm talking about. It should also be taken into account that she has explicitly stated her views on gender roles.
Alfa, this is exactly the kind of thing I am not talking about. What you wrote was not a logical proof, it wasn't an explanation with referents to reality followed by the abstractions they lead to; you just put down a couple of assertions.

Stating your views on something is not the same as a proof. Likewise, abstractly illustrating your views through a narrative is not the same as a proof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What facts are you reffering to?

Yes. The relationship between Dagny and John Galt is one example(actually all her relationships are good examples, but the later was the most fulfilling), Roark and Dominique another. I don't have the books at hand right now so I can't quote specific passages, but if you take a look i'm sure you will find what i'm talking about. It should also be taken into account that she has explicitly stated her views on gender roles.

I'm referring to pretty much all the facts of their relationship which were observed or recounted by those close to her - that Ayn was the initiator and pursuer of the relationship in the beginning, that Ayn was the one to have a career, that where they lived was primarily dependent upon Ayn's wishes and the needs of her career (specifically California vs. New York), that Ayn was more often than not the sexual initiator (again from the outside the bedroom perspective, no one knows anything beyond that), and that Frank very obviously needed Ayn more than Ayn needed Frank (see the Nathaniel mess...if it were Frank asking to see another woman Ayn would have just left). I am not trying to put Frank down at all here. He sounds like he was a wonderful, sweet guy, a fantastic husband. All I am saying is that clearly he was following Ayn's lead in pretty much their whole relationship and unless I am wrong, which I could be, I understand that to be more of the "masculine" role in the relationship from the perspective of both traditionalist gender roles and gender roles as Rand herself describes them.

Also, I want to be clear on this point. Just because Rand put something in a book or illustrated her view on something does not mean it integrates well with the rest of her philosophy. Rand should be given credit for having possibly the most internally consistent philosophy ever developed by anyone, anywhere. But simply saying "it's in the book" does not indicate specifically how it relates to the rest of the philosophy. And it should not be assumed that I will take a relationship as portrayed by Rand to be ideal and just accept that is the model of how a relationship should be. For instance, Roark and Dominique is certainly not indicative of the kind of relationship I would ever want to have, from either side. As for Dagny and John, I really always thought she should have gone with Frisco in the end. <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alfa, this is exactly the kind of thing I am not talking about. What you wrote was not a logical proof, it wasn't an explanation with referents to reality followed by the abstractions they lead to; you just put down a couple of assertions.

Stating your views on something is not the same as a proof. Likewise, abstractly illustrating your views through a narrative is not the same as a proof.

I thought you were asking two separate questions, and I was only trying to show what Ayn Rand's philosophy is. Do you think it's bad to point to her books and what she has stated on that subject? I mean, we have the quote where she mentions a woman president and how the feminine side is hero worship. Then she also describes this in her books, which should illusrate her philosophy very well. For example you have Dagny feeling completely protected and ready to "let go" in the arms of John Galt, and later she completely gives in as the highest form of worship towards him.

Then of course there's another question of how it's integrated into the philosophy - what the logical steps are. That's a bit more difficult, but I can atleast try and outline the steps(probably not stating anything new here, but anyway...):

Metaphysically it's based on the fact that males are the stronger part and that they are the initiators of sex. That is, their will is the primary - sex can only happen if the man wants it. The females will is only of secondary importance, she can be forced wether she likes it or not(and i'm just stating that as a fact of reality, nothing else).

The essence of masculinity is strength, and the essence of femininity is beauty. In this regard men become the value pursuers and women the value pursued. Men conquer and win women by the virtue of their strength, and women attract men by the virtue of their beauty(and not only the physical aspect) and by being a challenge and a value worth pursuing. The fact that men by nature are stronger and more agressive also makes this whole process very important for women. Surely a woman could pursue men in the same way as men pursue women, however that is only to the extent that men let them and it is in fact very dangerous. Women are much more vunerable and playing with the wrong kind of men can end in disaster.

Female sexuality is based on leting the man have her or not. She can either resist him or decide to let go. By leting go she is submiting to his strength, trusting him completely and puting aside everything else. It's a detour, a situation where she gives herself to the man and no longer acts as the "value pursuer" she normally is in all other areas of her life. To do that she needs a man that can match her, someone of great strength that she trusts and that can protect her. For a woman it's surrender, for a man it's conquest.

Morally then the proper thing for a woman would be hero worship. It's not a good thing for women to try and conquer men. That would only lead to trouble, and what kind of men would submit their strength to a woman? It would only be proper to go for the very best and that means, in effect, the heroic. For a man then it is by such qualities that he can win and conquer his heroine.

Does that make sense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm referring to pretty much all the facts of their relationship which were observed or recounted by those close to her - that Ayn was the initiator and pursuer of the relationship in the beginning, that Ayn was the one to have a career, that where they lived was primarily dependent upon Ayn's wishes and the needs of her career (specifically California vs. New York), that Ayn was more often than not the sexual initiator (again from the outside the bedroom perspective, no one knows anything beyond that), and that Frank very obviously needed Ayn more than Ayn needed Frank (see the Nathaniel mess...if it were Frank asking to see another woman Ayn would have just left). I am not trying to put Frank down at all here. He sounds like he was a wonderful, sweet guy, a fantastic husband. All I am saying is that clearly he was following Ayn's lead in pretty much their whole relationship and unless I am wrong, which I could be, I understand that to be more of the "masculine" role in the relationship from the perspective of both traditionalist gender roles and gender roles as Rand herself describes them.

I'm only familiar with the Branden affair, and I don't know much about that either, so I need a bit more context to judge these things properly.

When considering the issue of living in New York as opposed to California it's very important to know how and why that decision was made. If it was made in such a way that Frank was overuled and his wishes disregarded, then he was not being the man. On the other hand, maybe New York was more important to Ayn Rand than California was to Frank. Maybe she told Frank how important it is, having rational reasons for it, and maybe Frank understood the importance. Perhaps after hearing her reasons Frank thought that; "Screw California! If New York is so important for my lady that's where I, too, want to go".

Regarding their sexlife... well... i'm not sure how we could establish a clear context and keep it on a respectful level. However let me state that women can take initiative in the sense that they seduce, but the man can still remain in control. This is in a similar sense that the woman can be on top, but only if the man wants her to.

The fact that Ayn Rand was seeing another man does however indicate that something was not working in the relationship with Frank. Perhaps he let himself be overuled too many times and AR lost the attraction for him. Maybe he wasnt strong enough. I can only speculate of course, but my personal opinion on such situations is to tell the lady she better make up her mind quickly because she can't have both(and let her sleep on the couch until she decides). So the way I see it maybe there was something not working properly in their relationship and Frank must have made some mistake since his lady was seeing another man.

Edited by Alfa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought you were asking two separate questions, and I was only trying to show what Ayn Rand's philosophy is. Do you think it's bad to point to her books and what she has stated on that subject? I mean, we have the quote where she mentions a woman president and how the feminine side is hero worship. Then she also describes this in her books, which should illusrate her philosophy very well. For example you have Dagny feeling completely protected and ready to "let go" in the arms of John Galt, and later she completely gives in as the highest form of worship towards him.

Then of course there's another question of how it's integrated into the philosophy - what the logical steps are. That's a bit more difficult, but I can atleast try and outline the steps(probably not stating anything new here, but anyway...):

Metaphysically it's based on the fact that males are the stronger part and that they are the initiators of sex. That is, their will is the primary - sex can only happen if the man wants it. The females will is only of secondary importance, she can be forced wether she likes it or not(and i'm just stating that as a fact of reality, nothing else).

The essence of masculinity is strength, and the essence of femininity is beauty. In this regard men become the value pursuers and women the value pursued. Men conquer and win women by the virtue of their strength, and women attract men by the virtue of their beauty(and not only the physical aspect) and by being a challenge and a value worth pursuing. The fact that men by nature are stronger and more agressive also makes this whole process very important for women. Surely a woman could pursue men in the same way as men pursue women, however that is only to the extent that men let them and it is in fact very dangerous. Women are much more vunerable and playing with the wrong kind of men can end in disaster.

Female sexuality is based on leting the man have her or not. She can either resist him or decide to let go. By leting go she is submiting to his strength, trusting him completely and puting aside everything else. It's a detour, a situation where she gives herself to the man and no longer acts as the "value pursuer" she normally is in all other areas of her life. To do that she needs a man that can match her, someone of great strength that she trusts and that can protect her. For a woman it's surrender, for a man it's conquest.

Morally then the proper thing for a woman would be hero worship. It's not a good thing for women to try and conquer men. That would only lead to trouble, and what kind of men would submit their strength to a woman? It would only be proper to go for the very best and that means, in effect, the heroic. For a man then it is by such qualities that he can win and conquer his heroine.

Does that make sense?

And I would counter that as a woman attracted to men this is not at all my experience of romance and sexuality. It is not my experience of sex acts (let's not forget that sex does not boil down solely to intercourse and that there is an incredibly broad range of sexuality to consider here). I totally reject your assessment of masculinity and femininity. I find the idea of being anything but a value pursuer in any area of my life abhorrent and an insult to my personal sovereignty. There are many men who I am physically stronger than, possibly even you, but I would never think less of those men, and there are many very strong men who I find repulsive and low as individuals. I will always be puzzled how people who follow a philosophy which revolves around reason and the mind suddenly throw all that out and make it all about bodies when it comes to this one aspect. Some of the greatest heroic men, who have produced more value in the world than most of us could ever dream, are not physically strong, and some of the greatest heroic women are not beautiful. Many strong men and beautiful women are evil. If I had the choice to select a small, weak man who is a moral and intellectual giant or a strong, powerful man who is an evader and a stupid fool, who do you really think I ought to take? Who is really more of the man there, and if the latter, then of what use is manhood???

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...