Trey Givens Posted March 13, 2004 Report Share Posted March 13, 2004 That's a bit personal, doncha think? And in basic terms that's what I just did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard_Halley Posted March 13, 2004 Report Share Posted March 13, 2004 Yeah, I think we hit the post button very near to the same time. I edited the last post so that the conversation would make sense to people who read it in the morning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trey Givens Posted March 13, 2004 Report Share Posted March 13, 2004 Oh yes! I've seen that before. I believe Quent Cordair has some of his stuff. Check out Sam Axton's Excelsior and you see what I mean. He actually also has some beautiful sculptures of females, too. Update: No, this is where I saw wilkinson: Wilkinson But does this really help us? Because I know a beautiful woman when I see one and I appreciate that she is beautiful, but it's not the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard_Halley Posted March 13, 2004 Report Share Posted March 13, 2004 It helps us in that we have identified exactly what the various attractions are about. It simplifys our task down to figuring out where those attractions come from. Rand provides us with an interesting beginning regarding the attraction to the male form: Dominique Francon. Would you say your attraction is anything like hers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trey Givens Posted March 13, 2004 Report Share Posted March 13, 2004 I don't recall how that is described and unfortunately I'm at the office, so I will have to research that when I get back to my library... unless you have a quote handy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard_Halley Posted March 13, 2004 Report Share Posted March 13, 2004 Sorry, no handy quotes. Too late here for handy quotes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poohat Posted March 13, 2004 Report Share Posted March 13, 2004 I don't recall how that is described and unfortunately I'm at the office, so I will have to research that when I get back to my library... unless you have a quote handy! I think he's asking whether your attraction to a member of your own gender is primarilly based on devoted hero-worship and the overwhelming desire to drop to your knees and worship at the pink alter of his phallic deity while begging for him to carnally possess you with all of his macho might. Rand's views on male-female relationships were fairly 'interesting'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y_feldblum Posted March 13, 2004 Report Share Posted March 13, 2004 I suppose I should point out that one values and loves another person for his/her virtues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poohat Posted March 13, 2004 Report Share Posted March 13, 2004 I suppose I should point out that one values and loves another person for his/her virtues. And we all know that having/not having (delete as appropriate) a penis is the highest virtue one can possess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted March 13, 2004 Report Share Posted March 13, 2004 I think it was CapFo who argued the "Either sexuality is biological (and it's not) or homosexuality is immoral" dichotomy. He'll have to jump in here if I say it wrong, but I believe the argument was something like this: If all the characteristics of his lover including gender are a matter of man's volition, then implicit in the fact that men and women are biologically compatible, heterosexuality must be the result of properly held values. Wow, you chose a pretty convoluted way of stating your misunderstanding of what I meant. Let me provide a quick summary in my own words: It's up to you whom you fall in love with. A rational person will seek to find the best possible romance. The bodies and personalities of men and women complement each other, therefore the best match for a man will always be a woman and vice versa. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poohat Posted March 13, 2004 Report Share Posted March 13, 2004 The bodies and personalities of men and women complement each other, therefore the best match for a man will always be a woman and vice versa. The fallacy here is your use of the word 'always'. Shouldnt this be judged on a case by case basis? It seems a bit dumb and arbitrary to make a sweeping generalisation such as "you are man, you match with WOman".Even if a particular man is generally matches better with women than men, it doesnt mean that there wont be another man that he matches well with, perhaps even better than he would with a woman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Areactor Posted March 13, 2004 Report Share Posted March 13, 2004 I’m quite glad that I came to this forum. I learn something new every time I come here. At first I was a bit taken a back at why homosexuality would fit somewhere in the range of aesthetics but now I can fully understand why. I believe we (homosexuals) choose our lovers or at least sexual partners based on our sense of life, or our philosophy in life. I find women distasteful both physically and even philosophically. I despise “softness” and “submission” which many women have accepted as their place in life, granted by society and religion. Rand had somewhat advocated female submission on the part of a heterosexual relationship, though I could hardly find the women such as Dominique and Dagny as submissive. To say the least, they are such women I would find very attractive but only on an ideology, philosophically level, but not sexually. I can value the aesthetic beauty of a woman’s body, but the thought of having sexual intercourse with one make me want to wash my mouth out with soap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard_Halley Posted March 13, 2004 Report Share Posted March 13, 2004 I suppose I should point out that one values and loves another person for his/her virtues.\ Yes, feldblum, no one is ignoring this. But there is also a physical aspect to romantic love. Unless you wish to argue (which you may do) that a rational person would be physically attracted to anyone with the right virtures, regardless of gender, than this is un important. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Areactor Posted March 13, 2004 Report Share Posted March 13, 2004 Here’s a question. What aesthetic value would a homosexual man find in a man that wasn’t in a woman? And what aesthetic value would a heterosexual man find in a woman that wasn't in a man? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard_Halley Posted March 13, 2004 Report Share Posted March 13, 2004 I find women distasteful both physically and even philosophically. I despise “softness” and “submission” which many women have accepted as their place in life... Submission, in the way that Rand described it, was hardly comparable to that which religion advocates. Rand's submission is more to ones own passion, than to ones lover. This submission, it should be noted, seems to have been more an attribute of [her veiw of] the attraction to the ideal male form, than merely of women in general. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Areactor Posted March 13, 2004 Report Share Posted March 13, 2004 Submission, in the way that Rand described it, was hardly comparable to that which religion advocates. Rand's submission is more to ones own passion, than to ones lover. This submission, it should be noted, seems to have been more an attribute of [her veiw of] the attraction to the ideal male form, than merely of women in general. Thanks for that note Richard. I was also shocked by Rand's view of homosexuality though my shock lessened when I remembered the times she was living in when the only people who advocated homosexuality were part of the day’s “counterculture”. But I still couldn’t understand her views in Mental Health versus Mysticism and Self-Sacrifice by N. Branden. I found it strange that they believe a person became a homosexual because of some sort of denial of the opposite sex’s body. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard_Halley Posted March 13, 2004 Report Share Posted March 13, 2004 Rand publicly stated her opinions on homosexuality only once that I am aware of. It is reported that she usually showed much lighter views on the subject and even had homosexual friends. I will reread that essay in VOS and get back to you on that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinorityOfOne Posted March 14, 2004 Report Share Posted March 14, 2004 Reported where? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted March 14, 2004 Report Share Posted March 14, 2004 Even if a particular man is generally matches better with women than men, it doesnt mean that there wont be another man that he matches well with, perhaps even better than he would with a woman. There is no way two men can complement each other to the extent that the ideal man and the ideal woman do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard_Halley Posted March 14, 2004 Report Share Posted March 14, 2004 -It's up to you whom you fall in love with. -A rational person will seek to find the best possible romance. -The bodies and personalities of men and women complement each other, therefore the best match for a man will always be a woman and vice versa. I am inclined to agree here, certianally with the first two. I am in disagreement with the "personalities" part of the last clause. A persons personality is up to them and is seperate from gender. The question we are discussing, Cap Fo is if there could be a good reason to reject the physical compatibility you speak of in favor of somenthing else. If can show that this is not so, than we have come to a conclusion. However, I think we need a little more than this: There is no way two men can complement each other to the extent that the ideal man and the ideal woman do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Areactor Posted March 15, 2004 Report Share Posted March 15, 2004 There is no way two men can complement each other to the extent that the ideal man and the ideal woman do. I'd disagree with you here CF. Though it's not best to use fictional characters as an example, I'll use what we're all most familiar with. For example, the relationship between Roark and Wynand or Francisco and Rearden were quite homosocial. I believe Rand confirmed that in her journal.(Plus or minus the word homosocial) Some would argue what was missing was the sex thus elevating their relationships to homosexual status. Now lets say this happened, what problems would arise? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard_Halley Posted March 15, 2004 Report Share Posted March 15, 2004 Areactor: The issue here is this: Does the apparent physical incompatibilities in homosexual relationships necessicarily entail a moral problem? Now lets say this happened, what problems would arise?So, the answer to this is: if the physical incompatiblity is not a moral problem, than none. Though it's not best to use fictional characters as an example... As for this, when the fictional characters are the ideal, they should be used as an example. If you are going to say anything to the effect of, "the ideal is unachieveable," again, please do so openly and don't hide behind the concept of fictional characters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Areactor Posted March 15, 2004 Report Share Posted March 15, 2004 Areactor: The issue here is this: Does the apparent physical incompatibilities in homosexual relationships necessicarily entail a moral problem? So, the answer to this is: if the physical incompatiblity is not a moral problem, than none. As for this, when the fictional characters are the ideal, they should be used as an example. If you are going to say anything to the effect of, "the ideal is unachieveable," again, please do so openly and don't hide behind the concept of fictional characters. Hello Richard That isn’t what I was implying. I was giving warning that the example I was going to use wasn’t a real life example. Was I saying the ideal in unreachable? No. I wasn’t even saying such a situation could never be carried out. Most people I’ve met do not use fictional (especially Romantic) characters in order to prove a point, argue, question, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadCap Posted March 15, 2004 Report Share Posted March 15, 2004 This thread is now on its tenth page. Is anything new being said here that has not already been said on previous pages? If not, then I suggest we drop the topic, as it is only going in circles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard_Halley Posted March 15, 2004 Report Share Posted March 15, 2004 RadCap, we have removed biology from the discussion, and have simplifed the topic into this question: Do the apparent physical incompatibilities in homosexual relationships necessicarily entail a moral problem? Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think the first 9 pages managed to do this... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.