Is OL a gay site?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ted,

Well I guess you told me.

You know, I never realized how inherently superior to me you were.

Hell, I think you just might be better than everyone here on OL.

I'm getting this strange urge to fall down at your feet and kiss them...

Michae

[Selene]

Ted,

Well I guess you told me.

You know, I never realized how inherently superior to me you were.

Hell, I think you just might be better than everyone here on OL.

I'm getting this strange urge to fall down at your feet and kiss them...

Michae

Now I see where the extra "L" that you added to Darrell's name came from!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Adam,

Dayaamm!

I was too overcome by unbaaarabul emotion and jus' got plain ole' stomp-down sloppy.

That happens when you behold someone of sublime rank, lording over mere mortals.

Gosh, I hope I remember this so I can tell my grandkids.

Michael

[9thdoctor]

The quality of discourse here has really gone down lately. Following this thread is getting to be a drag.

What do you expect, seeing that the opening post is a troller? Even Rumpelstiltskin needed some straw to make gold.

I'm getting this strange urge to fall down at your feet and kiss them...

I suggest Anfama visit SLOP, where the propreitor’s hanky code is (my theory) Coral-Left. Or also Yellow-Left, I mean just look at him, you know he’s got to be flexible. So long as you’re some variation of Apricot, Yenta the Matchmaker thinks something can be arranged.

MSK and Jabba used to be chummy, I'm starting to see how that could have happened. Never made sense before.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The quality of discourse here has really gone down lately. Following this thread is getting to be a drag.

Pete,

What do you expect in a thread I moved to the Garbage Pile?

Something other than garbage?

I once had a person tell me if you go to the corner bar, you will encounter people who go to corner bars. If you go to the Governor's mansion, you will encounter people who go to Governor's mansions.

Thus, if you go to the Garbage Pile... (I'll let you finish...)

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dennis,

Don't worry. I'm just bantering.

I have a strong distaste for sanctimonious effusions of vanity parading about as intelligent discourse.

I prefer to lampoon that stuff rather than get nasty like the sanctimonious folks do.

Michael

[9thdoctor]

Don't worry. I'm just bantering.

Worry? Actually now I am worried, but it’s that you didn’t get the joke. Click the link and look up what the codes mean.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dennis,

Senior moment...

You're right, I didn't click the link.

Ran out of time. I had to go pick up Kat.

Seriously, I had never heard of a hanky code before.

Well now I know.

One of the coolest things I like about OL is all the useful stuff you learn.

Michael

[Reidy]

The article doesn't mention that blue-green, the color of Rearden Metal and of The Objectivist Newsletter and The Objectivist, means that the wearer is an Objectivist.

[9thdoctor]

The article doesn't mention that blue-green, the color of Rearden Metal and of The Objectivist Newsletter and The Objectivist, means that the wearer is an Objectivist.

One of the codes is Teal, that’s a blue-green. And it's funny how it ties in to this fearsome implement that Angie recommends people try:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8558&view=findpost&p=97701

[Reidy]

Okay, teal. Peikoff/ARI loyalists wear it on the right, Branden/Kelley/TAS partisans on the left.

[9thdoctor]

Okay, teal. Peikoff/ARI loyalists wear it on the right, Branden/Kelley/TAS partisans on the left.

On the right is usually the submitter, and on the left the dominate role. I don't see how it applies to ARI vs. TAS. Take Coral and Yellow Left, which I suggested was Jabba's combo, it means he likes to have his feet licked and he likes to piss on people, respectively. So then ARIans like to...have Objectivism done to them, while TAS people do it to others? Or did you mean it more literally, as in what Teal actually refers to?

You know what, forget it, I think we've already grappled this metaphor to the ground.

[Starbuckle]

"I have a strong distaste for sanctimonious effusions of vanity parading about as intelligent discourse. I prefer to lampoon that stuff rather than get nasty like the sanctimonious folks do."

If you could supply a list of which of your posts are lampoons of sanctimonious effusions and which are sanctimonious effusions, that would be helpful.

[Peter]

I just saw this old thread. Is OL a gay site? I was joking with George H. Smith about exercising under the influence of “Jack” with his male friend and may have given off a whiff of cologne. It was a joke, though not meant to be offensive to gays.

My name is Peter, and I always disliked jokes about “peters,” just as I am sure Dick dislikes “dick” references. As I introspectively observe my own “prickliness” on the subject I would agree with MSK: I would not want OL to be thought of as a site orientated to any form of sexuality.

SOLO has a gay section though.

I once crassly asked an Evolutionary Psychologist, if gay people do not pass on their genes, why do they keep showing up . . . you know, why are they continually being born?

He answered, “Because they give humans an evolutionary advantage. Gay-ness is passed on because it is an advantage.”

An advantage? Bullshit! How? Are they smarter? Is just one of them so much smarter that it matters? But if they don’t pass on their genes, their “smartness” would only be an advantage for one or two generations. Right?

“Yes,” he replied. “There may be a higher incidence of genius in gays. Or not. Or their genius expressed in human society may mean more to the society. The advantage they pass on to humanity, is that they help take care of children in a primitive society, without being a competitor for mates.”

So they take care of the kids?

“More or less,” he said. “They may be hunters or scholars, but they gave an evolutionary advantage to the clan to which they belong. More kids survive when they are around.”

Here are some old letters of mine, on the subject.

I will be voting for a more conservative candidate in 2012, but I have the usual Objectivist's qualms about using religion as a reason. So, I will email their campaign something like this.

Issue: Gay Marriage.

Support equal rights and protection under the law. Whether that equal protection is called “marriage” is not legally important, though it matters tremendously to the couple. And I would not rile those folks up needlessly. A third of that three percent of the voting gay population could swing the election.

Hospital Rights dramatizes this issue in a way that a person who opposes “gay marriage” for moral reasons can empathize. Who can make decisions for you if you are incapacitated? Who can come into your recovery room after an operation when visitors are limited?

If an ill person wants the caregiver to be the person with whom they are in a committed relationship, then their partner should be the one first allowed in. This can even affect people who are straight. A woman may be in the hospital and she wants her boyfriend to come into her recovery room after her operation. However, her family only allows “family” in, not the person who takes care of her.

The courts will eventually open this door, barring a constitutional amendment, which is highly unlikely.

I agree that taxation is another key to the dilemma of “equal protection under the law.” From what gay friends tell me, a great deal of their complaints are about paying taxes. A married couple gets some tax breaks that a single person doesn't. So, a fair system of taxation would remedy much of this.

Another problem could be that gay marriage would amount to an ex post facto rewriting of millions of wills, trusts, contracts, insurance policies, employee benefits policies and the like. Paraphrasing a past contributor to Owl: People made these agreements in good faith, and abrogating them is a serious and questionable move. The comeback to this may be that the same that goes for the abolition of slavery. Presumably, after the Civil War wills and pending deals went up in smoke. People lost assets overnight, heirs like the fictional Scarlet Ohara, were left high and dry - yet nobody says this was a sufficient reason to keep slavery legal.

You could patch this up with legislation to the effect that: if an employee came to work, a will was signed, etc., before the marriage legislation took effect, the old rules apply, but from now on, these marriages/unions, are as good as any others.

So, Conservative Governor, Senator, or whoever gets the nomination, I hope you will take the Constitutionally correct stance that “Equal Protection Under the Law” is necessary, but legally a gay union could be called a “civil union” or anything else that differentiates it from the traditional definition of “marriage.”

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter

To President Obama and Vice President Biden.

As a former soldier and the son of a career naval officer, I support, “Don’t ask, don’t tell.”

When President Obama does away with “Don’t ask, don’t tell,” gay people in the military can openly express their sexuality as long as they continue to be military in their bearing, during the execution of their duties. When gays openly express their sexuality, it would be intolerant straight military personnel who have the problem and not the reverse.

Yet, my gut reaction to doing away with “don’t ask, don’t tell,” is this: it would not be a good thing.

What if Sarge goes to the NCO club glammed up in eye makeup, lipstick and dressed in drag? It would compromise the morale of the majority of the troops.

Of course, it would be the same if Sarge were a straight, maudlin and blubbering drunk at the NCO club. Both displays would be detrimental.

President Obama should insist that certain homosexual or straight behaviors, even off duty or off post, can be inappropriate. He needs to spell it out.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

The following old letter has relevance today. Oprah just had a show about black men seeing no difficulty in getting down and dirty. Oprah was disgusted.

From: "Peter Taylor" <solarwind47@hotmail.com>

To: atlantis@wetheliving.com

Subject: ATL: Gays: The difference between sexual desire and action

Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 14:25:02 +0000

Christian wrote:

“There are many, many cases where significant damage is done to the formation of identity (or its parts) when desires and thoughts are confused with action and, in turn, given the same weight of consideration.

It is so important for people to realize that while our internal existence can tell us a lot about who we are-it is our actions that ultimately define us-and that there is, as Nathaniel Branden has written, "no such thing as an evil thought or evil emotion".”

End quote

If I were counseling a young person about their “fears” for their fantasies I would mention what Christian thinks and quoted. You are what you do.

In a LEGAL sense though not psychologically, a person is not labeled anything unless they act. A heterosexual is not straight until they have successful heterosexual sex, a pedophile is not a pedophile unless he solicits or has sex with a minor, a homosexual is not legally a homosexual unless the person has consensual homosexual sex, etc. Of course, forcing or coercive sex, “makes you” or legally labels the aggressor as a person of that sexual type in the eyes of the law even in the case of situational homosexuality in prison.

I just recently read an article that stated male person’s of a certain ethnic background PUBLICLY despise homosexuals, yet locally 15% of men of that ethnic back ground have AIDS acquired primarily through homosexual sexual practices. This percent may be the highest in the nation.

In private confidential interviews the men as a group admit to getting “Down and Dirty” with other males yet claim they are not homosexuals. They themselves estimate that nearly 99% of males in that ethnic background and in their acquaintances routinely engage in secret, homosexual sex. This predilection could be due to genetics, personal preference, or homosexual experiences in prison, and could explain their derision and depiction of females as “bitches” or “whores,” and could even explain their failure to commit to monogamous sexual relations with females. They think of themselves as hetero or bi-sexuals.

I personally think you are what you do but I remember a repressed character played by Rod Steiger in the movie, “The Sergeant” who though never having acted upon his obsession for another man could still be categorized as a homosexual. But generally, volitional acts define a person.

Peter Taylor

[Peter]

Here are a bunch of old letters from what I consider a precursor to Objectivist Living, Atlantis. The following are just for folks “really” interested in the subject.

Peter Taylor

From: RogerEBissell@cs.com

To: atlantis@wetheliving.com

Subject: ATL: Some helpful thoughts about homosexuality

Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 22:12:00 EDT

Dear List Members:

The ongoing discussion of homosexuality on Atlantis is developing quite nicely without my involvement, but I do have some thoughts about this issue that may be helpful in sorting through the biology and psychology of sexual preference.

There is a very interesting discussion of sexual identity and sexual orientation in Martin Seligman's book ~What You Can Change and What you Can't~ (Alfred A. Knopf, 1994). In particular, see the sections on "Exclusive homosexuality" and "Homosexuality and therapy" (pp. 154-157). The section on "Sexual identity" (pp. 151- 154) is also important.

Seligman speculates that sexual identity "has its origin in a fundamental hormonal process that occurs around the end of the first trimester of fetal development." Basically, certain brain structures either cooperate hormonally in sexualizing a person congruently with their chromosomal sex--in which case, you get a "sexually normal" person--or they don't. He also speculates that "exclusive homosexuality in males is an attenuated form of [male-to-female] transsexuality, which is in turn an attenuated form of [androgen insensivity syndrome]." The parallel in homosexual females would be attenuated "androgenital syndrome."

If this is true, then "true" homosexuality, though a considerably weakened form of transsexuality, would certainly not be a volitional choice, as some have claimed. It would not be "abnormal" in the volitional/moral sense--i.e., something that "needs to be fixed" by a therapist. (But see my further comments below.)

Nor is it even fixable with medical technology, at least not presently. Someday, medical sense may discover techniques to ensure that the crucial dose of hormones has been triggered (or prevented) during early fetal development, so that chromosomal sex and sexual identity can be congruent--assuming that the parents desire that.

There are many ways in which homosexuals cannot readily be distinguished from heterosexuals: personality measures (both those assessing normal personality, as well as those assessing disordered personality characteristics), intelligence, aptitude for particular areas of work or career interest, etc. There is, however, an interesting way in which homosexuals can be differentiated from ~one another~ (as can heterosexuals from one another).

"Ego-syntonic" homosexuals are those who "are happy with their sexuality and don't want to change." On the other hand, "ego- dystonic" homosexuals are ~unhappy~ with their homosexuality and desperately want to change their sexual orientation. They are depressed, can't stand being "queer," want to have children, want to escape what they perceive as a promiscuous lifestyle in the single, homosexual world. Behavior therapists about 25 years ago experimented with aversion therapy and found that about half of the ego-dystonic homosexuals who came to them for help could be successfully changed to heterosexuality. These men turned

out actually to be ~bisexual~, sometimes having sexual fantasies about women. But the other half turned out to be "exclusive" male homosexuals, who were having severe social adjustment problems (due to persecution, ostracism, abuse, etc.), rather than a true sexual identity problem. Therapy usually failed with these men.

The implication of this for therapy is this: if you can reliably determine whether a person troubled with sexual identity issues --whether homosexual ~or~ heterosexual--has opposite-gender sexual fantasies, then you can determine whether it's reasonable or not to proceed with aversion therapy. (And, in any case, it should be ~voluntary~ and sought out by the patient, not forced on them by others.) Both heterosexuals and homosexuals who had opposite-gender sexual fantasies could probably be "cured" of the conflict generated by their underlying bisexuality, but ~only~ in the direction of their underlying primary preference. You could not successfully convert a "true" homosexual into a heterosexual, any more than you could successfully convert a "true" heterosexual into a homosexual. (Homophobic fears in the conservative community notwithstanding!)

Granted, this is speculative. But it is the best explanation I have heard for an existing therapeutic technique that actually works for some people who really want and need help with sexual identity problems. And Seligman's discussion more generally is a good antidote to the notion that homosexuality is a monolithic phenomenon, and that (on the one hand) all homosexuals have "flawed premises" or that (on the other hand) all homosexuals would be just fine with their sexual lifestyle if everyone left them alone. Life, and sexuality, just ain't that simple, friends.

Best 2 all,

Roger Bissell

From: "R. Christian Ross" <reason_on@hotmail.com>

To: atlantis@wetheliving.com

Subject: Re: ATL: Some helpful thoughts about homosexuality

Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 03:23:32 +0000

For some interesting and slightly odd details on this very topic (focused on true transsexuality and sex reassignment) please see the following from...The Scientist.

http://www.the-scientist.com/yr2000/jul/lewis_p6_000710.html

(requires email registration)

Abstract:

Results of two studies from the Johns Hopkins Children's Center challenge accepted medical practice of "sex reassignment"--surgically converting XY males with absent or minuscule penises into anatomical females, then raising them as girls. The investigations, which are the first to go beyond individual case reports, reveal outcomes that are remarkably consistent with rare instances of infants who lost their penises in accidents and who were reassigned as females. Both clinical trials and case reports powerfully argue for nature over nurture in establishing gender identity.

William Reiner, a child and adolescent psychiatrist and urologist at the Johns Hopkins Children's Center, reported the studies at the Lawson Wilkins Pediatric Endocrine Society meeting in Boston on May 12, 2000. "These children demonstrate that normal male gender identity can develop not only in the absence of the penis, but even after the removal of the testicles and unequivocal rearing as female. The studies suggest that male gender identity is directly related to normal male patterns of hormone exposure in utero," he says. The investigations began in 1995.

In one study, Reiner and director of pediatric urology John Gearhart followed 14 children born with cloacal exstrophy. "These kids have a pelvic field defect that is probably a problem in genetic timing in the embryo, a control gene that is turned off too soon, or on too late. A number of anomalies are associated with this problem. A boy has no penis, but normal testicles. In a girl, there is no clitoris but usually a vagina. She is raised as a girl," explains Reiner.

Christian

From: Ellen Moore <ellen_moore@mb.sympatico.ca>

To: Atlantis@wetheliving.com

Subject: ATL: Re: Response to Chris's "Reply to Moore on Sexuality and More"

Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 15:37:49 -0500

Chris,

In this post I intend to deal with your replies to my points. In another post I intend to tell you and the members here of my personal response to homosexuality, and to sexuality in general. The latter is an issue I have never told before. You may use this next post for your series.

Your "Maybe" paragraph, after quoting me, was to say "maybe" your title, "Objectivism and Homosexuality" expresses your motivation to "show PRECISELY what Ellen is driving at: ... to prove Ellen's point." Well, is it or isn't it? What is your point, or motivation, in carrying out a survey among people who are not Objectivists, while insisting it be under that title which is not applicable to the people surveyed? I see a BIG contradiction inherent in there.

Yet you say the survey is important and we can learn from it. What? Your first point reduces to the idea that people say things that are hypocritical; claiming to "self-identify" with Objectivism when they actually do not identify with objective principles. In other words, lack of integrity, and hypocrisy. Your second point is "to trace a 'network of behavior, beliefs, and attitudes' among a group of people who so self-identify." Where is the evidence that this self-identification is justified? You speak of "Objectivist Ritualists" as those who dogmatize every word of Rand's into rules of thought, taste and behavior. But that is exactly what non-Objectivists do NOT do. They give lip-service to some ideas Rand offers while they reject her basic principles. What is such a study of non-objectivity [read subjectivity] worth in the long run?

That survey is Collectivism; whether the practice is carried out by you or by advertisers "in a kind of sociological investigation." This is strictly anecdotal, statistics, averages, percentages, personal opinions and preferences, and in the case of non-Objectivists, it will never bear any relationship to the philosophy of Objectivism. I am totally skeptical about how many authentic Objectivists will be part of this type of survey. This is more an exercise in "rationalizations". I see no reason for that. To me it clearly is starting out with a false premise to end with a false conclusion. To repeat: Objectivism says nothing philosophical about homosexuality.

Next you speak of "the evolution of a philosophical body of thought -- an evolution that includes those who advocate it, those who criticize it, and those who modify or revise it." ... then you claim -- " I'm simply bringing a scientific pedigree to the study of attitudes and beliefs as they have been expressed in various forums." "A scientific pedigree"?

Chris, that is awful tripe. That is neither "scientific" method, nor pedigree. Now I know there are people who want there to be an "evolution" that will "modify and revise" Rand's philosophy into something more compatible with their personal whims and rationalizations. But, that will never be Objectivism according to Rand. It is Rand's philosophy, and Objectivism will always be Rand's philosophy as presented in her body of work. Yes, there may be new identifications and applications that are consistent with her premises and principles -- but, they will not be Objectivism - credit for them will be merited by those who originate new ideas built upon new knowledge and based upon her previous work.

I recently heard from an associate who attended a conference of lectures this summer, including Peikoff and his associates. I give credit for this: specific individuals, Peikoff, Gary Hull, Andrew Bernstein were named as those who prefaced their remarks as their own personal work of interpretations, not intended in any way to be the work of Ayn Rand. In other words they leave her philosophical work intact and integrated. Their work is their own. I do not consider this an "evolution" of Objectivism - at best it is interpretations that are worth critical reading, and at worst it is rationalizations and more drivel. [Peikoff, I was told, has a new book in preparation on the topic of "Integration".]

You agree that some personal preferences and tastes expressed will be in sync with Objectivism, and others will be completely at odds with its basic rational principles. But Chris, Objectivism is a philosophy of individualism holding that personal preferences are contextual -- and we know that means they can be rational or irrational.. All Objectivism maintains is that personal preferences and values be based on context, reason, and objectivity. Individuals may be, and are, as diverse as can be. Reason and objectivity applied by individuals is the standard that separates the men from the boys, and, as you say, the wheat from the chaff. So, what you call "evolution" is only as valuable as the rationality of the individuals -- so hypocrisy and rationalism have no value.

Chris himself, I think, is stating his personal belief that homosexuality is NOT AT ODDS with Objectivism. That too is what I am saying. These are our personal beliefs. Yet, is Chris actually, "maybe", stating that Ayn Rand's personal belief that homosexuality is "disgusting" is not at odds with Objectivism. Why? Well, just because there are dogmatic non-Objectivist followers who take every word of Rand as a rule governing all human behavior. Why, I ask, can't Rand have her own personal tastes, and be free to express them? Well, they answer, that is because Rand said that she always speaks as a philosopher, and the dogmatists take that as a law, too -- so when she said that homosexuality is disgusting, then that becomes, in their minds, a dogmatic rule which governs their actions. My *point* is that Ayn Rand's personal response to homosexuality is NOT AT ODDS with the principles of Objectivism. I hope that "Maybe" this is Chris's *point*, too. I'll have to wait and see.

Now, I have to disagree with Chris's implication about Peikoff's "Understanding Objectivism" lectures. I am not going to refer to the dates when it was presented, or when Branden published "The Disowned Self" [which I've never read]. Both were produced after Rand repudiated N. Branden. Chris wrote, "I should state for the record, however, that much of what Peikoff discusses in that course is an echo, in many respects, of what Nathaniel Branden states in such works as THE DISOWNED SELF, a book he wrote after the break with Rand."

This leaves the direct implication that Peikoff's presentation was "an echo" of Branden's presentation. I believe that any similarity in their views is much more likely 'an echo' of what both men learned directly from Ayn Rand about Objectivism. I know that Peikoff made a point of NOT reading Branden, so the word "echo" leaves a false impression in the mind of Chris's readers.

Chris writes of his wish that "...if we'd stop thinking of the Other as the Other, we'd embrace our common humanity in a way that might bridge an unnecessary divide." That's "whistling in the wind" -- we might as well wish that our common humanity would make us all rational. We're all volitional, but we are definitely NOT all rational.

Thanks to Chris, we have been given a lesson in etymology. But if openly homosexual persons are "gai", and moderns use it as a password, I say let them spell it "gai". I'll just consider that Cary Grant said, "gone gai", and no one hearing him spoke Provencal. I still refuse to use terms like "gay" or "straight" -- both are an adherence to faulty conventions.

I'll not argue at length about what you call "heavy doses of dominance and submission". I don't see what you think is described by Rand about sexuality. So let me just remind you of the descriptive scenes in the Fountainhead in the first meetings between Roark and Dominique. Now that was strictly the challenge of masculinity and femininity in sexuality. Not everyone understands that perspective in sexuality. In fact, their mutual sexual challenge was evident on sight and was played out in all their actions. She deliberately lashed him across the face with her horsewhip because he had *insulted* her deliberately with his posturing rejection in not coming back to lay the fireplace marble [pun intended]. That action was her revenge for his insult to her sexuality! In other words, she knew immediately he wanted her sexually, and he knew she wanted him. This was the game of challenge they played to provoke and excite each other's passion. If this be "fantasy", make the most of it - if you can. For those who can't, more's the pity.

In conclusion for now, all I have said is that Objectivism means Individualism, has nothing to say about homosexuality, and I do think that personal differences and even errors, this side of irrationality, evasion, and immorality, should be treated with respect.

Ellen

From: Chris Matthew Sciabarra <chris.sciabarra@nyu.edu>

To: Atlantis* <atlantis@wetheliving.com>

Subject: ATL: brief reply to Moore, et. al.

Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 21:11:15 -0400

I'm going to make this reply brief; I've been INUNDATED with personal correspondence from many, many people with regard to this series, and find it impossible to continue engaging in lengthy dialogue on this, AND with those who have contacted me. There are only so many hours in a day.

However, I would like to thank such people as Morganis and Ellen Moore for further clarification and discussion of this issue, and I do look forward to continued discussion. I'll try to post when I can.

With regard to Ellen: she asks if my "maybe" paragraph IS or ISN'T designed to make the points that she herself has made. Yes. It is. But this is going to be a long series, and I don't like ruining the ending before writing the intervening chapters, so-to-speak.

Ellen wonders why anyone would want to survey people who self-identify as Objectivists, even if some of these fall under the category of what Rand called "Objectivist ritualists." When Rand made that statement, she did not presume that such ritualists were incapable of checking their premises. I think that if we articulate the contradictions inherent in the statements of such ritualists, we might inspire them to philosophical integrity on this matter.

I agree with Ellen that Objectivism says nothing philosophical about homosexuality; but Rand never made that point when she called it 'disgusting.' Do I believe that Rand or anyone else has a right to call it 'disgusting' -- from a personal perspective? Sure. But Rand presented herself as the living embodiment of her philosophy. She NEVER made the distinction between her personal view of homosexuality and any philosophical view of it. That had the effect of creating loads of unintended consequences as several of her followers viewed her statement as one that was philosophically justified. I do not have to recount how tragic that view was -- and is. It was up to people like Peikoff and Packer and Branden and others to clarify the distinction between the philosophical and the personal in this matter.

I will always disagree with Ellen with regard to the evolution of ideas. Yes, there is a body of thought that Rand originated and that she called Objectivism. But Objectivism does not and cannot end with Rand's writings. Just as Marx's writings do not constitute the body of Marxism as an intellectual tradition, so too, Rand's writings will not be considered -- in the history of thought -- as the beginning and end of a tradition. It is incumbent on each of us to weigh the extensions and applications for their consistency with Rand's work -- and ultimately, their correspondence with reality. THAT is, after all, our ultimate barometer of truth.

I think Ellen and I are coming at this from different angles, but I still see that we are saying the same thing with regard to the topic at hand.

A couple of other notes:

As for the Peikoff-Branden parallels: I have no way of actually knowing if Peikoff read Branden in the privacy of his own home. I only know that "Understanding Objectivism" was delivered in 1983, and that Branden's DISOWNED SELF was published in 1971, with a second edition published in 1978. I have no doubt that both men learned much from Rand on the issue of the integration of reason and emotion. But the points Peikoff made were first made by Branden, more than a decade before Peikoff presented his course... still a valuable course till this day.

As for Rand's sex scenes: I'm not even going to go there. I know the symbolism of these scenes, and have no fundamental objection to any possible predilections depicted therein. Whatever floats your boat is fine with me!

Cheers,

Chris

From: "Jane Yoder" <janeyoder@earthlink.net>

Reply-To: janeyoder@earthlink.net

To: atlantis@wetheliving.com

Subject: ATL: Re: Roger's Helpful Thoughts

Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 17:7:44 -0600

Thank you Roger for your information and I must concur with your conclusion "Life, and sexuality, just ain't that simple, friends." Being a scientific dunderhead my sources on such topics are either you folks or popular pulp stuff. _Genome_ by Matt Ridley is such a book -- it's an "autobiography of a species in 23 chapters." The relevant chapter is found between #7 (Instinct) and #8 (Self-Interest) and is entitled "X and Y" (Conflict)

In that chapter sexuality is discussed as conflict first, then as why there are types, and lastly as knowledge not conclusive. However, he does adumbrate material which posits a genetic component of this conflict between Xs and Ys (including hormonal changes) as well as a birth order (including placental hormonal features) by way of explanations. It has been rather a long time since I read the book although I've begun his next work entitled _The Red Queen_.

I find Matt Ridley helpful both in what he writes and in his offerings of source material. Footnotes to the X/Y chapter include:

_Evolution: the four billion year war_ textbook by Majerus, Amos, & Hurst

_Narrow roads of gene land_ by W. D. Hamilton

"The enemies within: intergenomic conflict, interlocus contest evolution (ICE), and the intraspecific Red Queen. _Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology_ 41: 1-10.

There is a wealth of other material however, I wished to express that I am convinced that whatever causes and attributes science may discover homosexuality is not chosen. Even though terrible things happen by straights in social or physical punishment (of course I'm against such) there is still the horrible twisted effects of Biblical lore and proportions upon youngsters in dealing with their own sexuality. Some of the most rabid torturers are those who belie their own tendencies and do a reverse frustration act.

I am most impressed with rational discussion altering the "flawed premises" argument. However, I maintain I do not like parades that flaunt any kind of sexuality.

All for now,

Jane

From: Jim Peron <peron@gonet.co.za>

Reply-To: peron@gonet.co.za

To: atlantis@wetheliving.com

Subject: ATL: bad premises and homosexuality

Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 02:56:40 +0200

First, I should apologize if I cover something already covered by someone else. The past few times I’ve come to WTL to check out posting I’ve found the format different from what it used to be in regards to the index and the new format is much more difficult to read and to use so I’ve pretty much stopped doing so.

But I do see that some people are promoting Leonard Peikoff’s theory of homosexuality — the one that has to do with false premises that no one can recognize and that no can change. I’ve read Peikoff’s comments about the intelligent, sensitive boy and so forth. While his comments didn’t help me understand homosexuality I did get the impression that I was reading more biography than he might be comfortable revealing. Surely I couldn’t have been the only one getting that impression.

Peikoff’s theory need not be homophobic though I have no doubt that some homophobes will grab onto it. But I find it very insufficient. In his comments he seems to imply that it had something to do with being sensitive and intelligent (though I don’t know if he meant to imply that both were necessary or if either by itself were sufficient). Beyond that we really have no idea what kind of premises we are talking about.

Nor we do we know if it is supposedly one premise, several premises that can each independently lead to homosexuality, a collection of premises that work together, etc. It really comes across to me as a variation of the theories of Freudians like Socarides and the sort.

The fact that the theory is a very vague one makes it difficult to rebut directly. If the advocates of such a theory were a bit more specific we might be able to marshal specific evidence against their specific claims. A vague theory is damn difficult to rebut since it is undefined any rebuttal can be dismissed on the grounds that the points made are irrelevant to their specific theory. So to really discuss the matter some more definition of the theory, by those advocating it, would need be made.

That said I do believe there are some very good reasons to dismiss this theory. When we debate this issue we have some facts at our disposal and lots of unknowns. So while we may know some specifics about homosexuality we attempt to use them to conjecture out a coherent theory. Based on some things we do know there are, I think, good reasons to dismiss the premise theory.

Regarding premises themselves we know that do vary from age to age, culture to culture, and person to person. Some false premises are more likely to be believed by the intelligent -- Marxism for instance. While others are more likely to be believe by the relatively dumb --fundamentalist Christianity for instance. Now what I find odd, if this theory is correct, is what kind of premise is there that is held across such groups in a relatively constant percentage.

Now Peikoff spoke of intelligent, sensitive boys. Of course homosexuality is not disproportionately found among the intelligent, or the sensitive for that matter. I’ve known gay men who are incredibly intelligent and some who are incredibly stupid. I’ve known some who are sensitive and many who are not. And I’m not exactly sure how any of that would apply regarding lesbianism --- something the theorists always leave out of their equations because it usually doesn’t fit their theories.

But in the West we’ve had some relative good research on the preponderance of homosexuality going back 50 years. During that time we’ve also seen some wild swings in basic cultural values and premises ranging from the very staunchly conservative and Victorian to the rather promiscuous values of the late 60s. We’ve also been able to study people from intelligent families, stupid families, wealthy families, poor families, etc., etc. In other words we’ve got a lot of information on a lot of people covering several decades and many different cultures.

And what have we found in regards to homosexuality. Well, it seems to remain pretty constant. Now I know the professional gay rights advocates have thrown about exaggerated numbers or have intentionally misinterpreted various studies. And while homosexuals do not appear to make up 10% of the population the numbers do remain amazingly constant.

Now this strikes me as an oddity. Some Freudians wanted us to believe that a distant father resulted in homosexuality --- well we can test that theory by checking out the African American community where fathers, for about two decades now, have not only been distant but absent in a very high number of cases. But since there seems to be no reason to suspect a higher percentage of black homosexuals than white homosexuals I think we can dismiss that claim. This is what I mean when I say once a theory starts to get specific we can look for evidence to refute it.

But what kind of premises remains constant among all groups at all times? Premises rise and fall yet this one would seem not only to not fluctuate in any meaningful way but to effect all social groups in the same proportion. Now that is very odd. Considering how wildly values in regards to sexuality in particular have fluctuated in the last 50 years then I would suspect that the most likely premises to cause homosexuality would fluctuate as well. But so far no fluctuation.

The constancy of rates of homosexuality seems to contradict the idea that sexual orientation is rooted in some premise. There is also some other evidence that calls this matter into question and that is the vary rates of homosexuality within the same families. The above referred to larger social groups and the numbers do remain constant. But within families themselves the numbers are very different.

For instance if we collect a sample of gay men we can then check the preponderance of homosexuality among siblings or non-siblings who were raised together. When gay men are compared to non-siblings who grew up in the same household we discover that the non-siblings have an average rate of homosexuality. The fact that one of them was gay seems to have no impact on the other one. Now of course that makes sense we’d say.

After all just because one of them accepted the required premise doesn’t mean that the other is any more likely to do so than other people in society even if they are raised in the same house with the same parents, culture, etc.

Well, the premise theory is fine so far. But once we compare start looking at the male siblings of gay men we discover that the rate of homosexuality among male siblings is slightly higher than it should be according to general numbers. The difference isn’t high enough to draw hard and fast conclusions but it does raise questions. The premise theory still holds alright but it is getting shaky.

When we get to twins things really start to go hay wire. A gay man who is a dizygotic twin is much more likely to have a gay twin sibling than the averages would tell us should be normal. And when it comes to

monozygotic twins the rate is even higher. Now the premise theory starts to look really unlikely.

There is no reason to believe that monozygotic twins are more likely to hold the same premises than are dizygotic twins. And since non-related children raised together show no elevation in the rates of homosexuality (where one is known to be gay) then we have no reason to think it comes from the family surroundings. Yet the higher correlation in twins, as opposed to mere siblings, tells us that something else may be happening — something that may well be genetic.

Another interesting study of gay men asked men to name other family members who they knew to be gay or suspected to be gay. Now presumably such numbers should also be random. And at first they appeared to be so until researchers noticed something. If a man had gay relatives he was more likely to have them on his mother’s side of the family than on his father’s side. This is significant for a couple of reasons. One is that a higher level on the mother’s side indicates a strong genetic possibility.

One of the problems people have in accepting that homosexuality might be genetic is that they assume it would die out since homosexuals are less likely to reproduce. This would be true if the genetic nature of homosexuality were passed via the father. But if such genes existed they could be passed on through the mother’s side of the family. And that would mean if a gay person were located any gay relatives he might have should be disproportionately on his mother’s side of the family. Which is what they found.

Now what kind of premise is passed around from generation to generation but only on the mother’s side of the family (I think if you’re mother is Jewish that you are considered one too but that’s not what I had in mind).

So the premise theory doesn’t seem to fit the patterns of homosexuality that we do know about. A premise theory would have to explain why it appears less often in the siblings of gays than in the twin siblings of gays, than in the monozygotic twin siblings of gays. It would also have to explain why the premise seems to remain constant over time and in various groups and cultures. And it would have to answer why this premise seems more likely on the mother’s side of the family than on the father’s side. Now that is asking an awful lot of a premise.

From: Ellen Moore <ellen_moore@mb.sympatico.ca>

To: Atlantis@wetheliving.com

Subject: ATL: Re: Brief reply to Moore et al - by Chris

Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 13:56:50 -0500

Chris,

I think your position, now made clear by you, should now be clear to all of the readers here. At the very least, it is clear to me. As usual you plead "too busy" to continue this dialogue here because your final goal is firmly set, your mind is made up, your series will follow as it must, and the conclusions will be those you knew at the beginning before you had all those personal responses. That IS the fallacy of begging the question, No?

I suggested at the beginning that you have a personal, political agenda in mind. Now I'm certain of that. I'll explain to you, and the members.

My first criticism was that your title "Objectivism and Homosexuality" is misleading, and it is invalid. Now you've admitted I was right in saying that Objectivism has nothing philosophical to say about homosexuality. In fact, Objectivism has nothing to say about sex other than to affirm "sex is good".

Next, you admit that your "Maybe" paragraph was designed to make the points that I had made. Your goal then, after all is said and written, is to show that Objectivism remains neutral about homosexuality, and that Rand's personal view that homosexuality is "disgusting" is NOT a principle of Objectivism. But you've known this for years; that there are issues that are optional. Rand's rational option was her objective judgment about the practices of homosexuality. It's evident that she did NOT think it is a physical or metaphysical fact of nature because then there would be no volitional choice in the matter. She obviously judged that homosexuality is a volitional choice [which fits consistently with the idea that it is an issue of early psychological development]. Her view that it is "disgusting" is the result of her volitional choices and her psychological value judgments. She has the rational option of stating her personal values - you agree.

But you continue to belabor this issue when you say, "but Rand never made that point when she called it "disgusting". Why do you insist that she had to qualify this or any of her personal values by saying, "this is not a principle of Objectivism" - it is obvious to any objective thinker that Objectivism does not set down dogmatic rules of behavior, and that Rand has a right to state her personal contextual values – and you agree!

Then you write, "But Rand presented herself as the living embodiment of her philosophy." Of course, and she was right to do so. It is HER philosophy of life. And anyone else who agrees with her that homosexuality is "disgusting" is also right to state their personal values. She also said that she always speaks as a philosopher, but that contextual statement certainly does not mean that every personal thing she also values and has expressed is a dogmatic philosophical rule. You know this, Chris. Rand was not the cause of the tragic problems of dependent dogmatists and poor subjective thinkers among her followers. I have begun to wonder if you were one of those who were emotionally distressed and psychologically upset by her personal response to this matter. It is very likely that maturity is the main issue in evaluating this matter. Much as I valued Peikoff's Understanding Objectivism, I did not need him to tell me how to evaluate the fact that I did not have to love skyscrapers with a passion just because Rand did, or comply with her tastes in order to become an Objectivist. Nor is anyone justified in claiming that homosexuality is caused "biologically" and is not open to choice - that claim is unproved, so volition and psychology is still the "rational option" in this context. Rand thought so too based in her context, and she did not have to state that fact again publicly -- it is evident in the principles of her philosophy. In other words, those who understood the principles didn't need to be taught by anyone to distinguish between the philosophical principles and the personal choices about issues of these kinds.

I'm sure that Chris will never agree with me about the evolution of ideas. I do not agree with his idea that there is the "evolution of ideas". He wrote, "Yes, there is a body of thought that Rand originated and that she called Objectivism. But Objectivism does not and cannot end with Rand's writings." Then, off he goes into his usual "intellectual tradition" routine. This is what I object to, and I made it clear why I respected those associated with Peikoff who respect Rand's body of work as her own -- distinguished from their own personal body of work that may be judged as consistent [or not] with the Objectivist principles -- which IS ultimately consistent with reality.

Chris and others may think as they wish in terms of intellectual traditions, Marxist traditions, Platonist traditions, and Aristotelian traditions, but I do not. I really abhor the whole idea of "traditionalism" and "ritualism", collectivism and tribalism, ethnicity and culturalism. I am opposed to that style of thinking in every form it takes. There is only Individualism. And Objectivism is a philosophy of Individualism. [i offer a little note of appreciation to all those who give Rand full credit for her body of work, and who never intend to change it into something she did not advocate in principle.] Future consistent applications of principles will necessarily be the work of other individuals, and that is to their credit.

And I do not think, as he said, that Chris and I are merely coming at this from different angles; I think we disagree totally on the importance of "traditions' and "sub-cultures" It is also clear that Chris did imply that Peikoff's ideas on "rational, contextual options, was first made by Branden's - because of the presentation dates Chris quotes. The dates are totally irrelevant. Branden solicited a relationship with Rand a few years before introducing Peikoff to her when he was a youthful 17. That too is irrelevant. My point is this: Peikoff is the professional philosopher to whom Rand trusted to take care of her philosophical interests. Whatever Branden learned from her is to his credit -- UNTIL he repudiated the principles of Objectivism by his immoral actions. Anything he wrote after Rand repudiated him publicly is totally irrelevant to the philosophy Objectivism.

Dear Chris, understanding the sexuality depicted by Rand's sex scenes cannot be understood the way that you make it sound, as if it's "anything goes". Sexual foreplay and orgasms, which may be good, bad and indifferent, begin and end in the physical realm of pleasure. There is so much more in "sexuality" of the mind and its values Rand's depiction of sexuality as masculinity and femininity is exactly what homosexuals, and many heterosexuals, will never understand. Pity!

I'm sure you will continue the survey and write what you intended to conclude in the first place, but it will say nothing about Objectivism, and not likely add much to the study of homosexuality other than personal anecdotes. So, listen up, you will not be able to prove that Objectivism philosophically sanctions homosexuality.

As to me, I did say here that I would write something about my personal experiences regarding this issue for your series. I offered that idea hastily, and I have changed my mind. What I had to say was not about homosexuality; it was about my own emotional responses to masculinity and femininity. That's my sexual psychology, and I have no reason to discuss that private value for public collective consumption. The reason is that I have thought seriously about your project, and your goals, and I thoroughly disagree with sociological surveys in general, and with your title, methods, criteria, and personal agenda. All you will achieve with a collectivist approach to this issue will be a collectivist consensus. So what does that achieve? Collective subjectivism.

I think our opposing views are quite obvious now, so you, Chris, are not required to spend a moment of your time in responding.

Ellen

You admit that not all of Rand's choices should be viewed as Objectivist *rules* of behavior, and that those who treat them as such are dogmatic "ritualists" -- they are not Objectivists in principle. Now you write that if we articulate their contradictions then "we might inspire them to philosophical integrity on this matter. We all, those who accept volition and who read Rand, know that people are able to "check their premises".

But why then, need you ask for all personal opinions and experiences re homosexuality by means of e-mails etc. to do a survey to prove what you already know is true. So, why don't you just write a book, as a self-declared Objectivist, and explain that Objectivism leaves sexual proclivities including homosexuality up to individual volitional choices -- where anything goes as long as those involved act voluntarily, i.e., without the initiation of physical force.

From: Chris Matthew Sciabarra <chris.sciabarra@nyu.edu>

To: Atlantis@wetheliving.com

Subject: ATL: Reply Again to Moore

Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 15:56:50 -0400

This is a reply to Ellen Moore... I'm going to do this by cut-and-paste for the sake ease.

At 01:56 PM 8/25/2001 -0500, Ellen Moore wrote: Chris, I think your position, now made clear by you, should now be clear to all of the readers here. At the very least, it is clear to me. As usual you plead "too busy" to continue this dialogue here because your final goal is firmly set, your mind is made up, your series will follow as it must, and the conclusions will be those you knew at the beginning before you had all those personal responses. That IS the fallacy of begging the question, No?

C: ABSOLUTELY NOT. The conclusion that Objectivism is neutral with regard to homosexuality has nothing to do with actually doing the kind of work that is necessary to bringing out the differing attitudes on sexuality held by various people within Objectivism or associated with Rand's philosophy. Since you reject the idea that there is no legitimate reason to investigate culture because the concept of "culture" as such is a collectivist construction (that would have been news to Ayn Rand, by the way, who ALWAYS spoke in terms of culture and its importance), you will see no value in this study of attitudes.

I wonder, then, if there is any value in quoting you for this attitudinal survey. Why on earth would you want me to?

As for me being "too busy" -- I, like everybody else, must set priorities of time. I set out to tell a story, and that requires answering more than 80 emails a day on this topic alone. If I do this privately, and engage in this public debate on every turn, I might as well forget things like eating and sleeping. For those of you who live on these email lists, I don't know how you do it.

Ellen: I suggested at the beginning that you have a personal, political agenda in mind. Now I'm certain of that. I'll explain to you, and the members. My first criticism was that your title "Objectivism and Homosexuality" is misleading, and it is invalid. Now you've admitted I was right in saying that Objectivism has nothing philosophical to say about homosexuality.

Chris: Nothing clandestine about that... the theme is present in the original article...

Ellen: In fact, Objectivism has nothing to say about sex other than to affirm "sex is good".

Chris: It has quite a bit more to say, as you know.

Ellen: Next, you admit that your "Maybe" paragraph was designed to make the points that I had made. Your goal then, after all is said and written, is to show that Objectivism remains neutral about homosexuality, and that Rand's personal view that homosexuality is "disgusting" is NOT a principle of Objectivism. But you've known this for years; that there are issues that are optional. Rand's rational option was her objective judgment about the practices of homosexuality. It's evident that she did NOT think it is a physical or metaphysical fact of nature because then there would be no volitional choice in the matter. She obviously judged that homosexuality is a volitional choice [which fits consistently with the idea that it is an issue of early psychological development]. Her view that it is "disgusting" is the result of her volitional choices and her

psychological value judgments. She has the rational option of stating her personal values - you agree. But you continue to belabor this issue when you say, "but Rand never made that point when she called it "disgusting".

Why do you insist that she had to qualify this or any of her personal values by saying, "this is not a principle of Objectivism" - it is obvious to any objective thinker that Objectivism does not set down dogmatic rules of behavior, and that Rand has a right to state her personal contextual values - and you agree!

Then you write, "But Rand presented herself as the living embodiment of her philosophy." Of course, and she was right to do so. It is HER philosophy of life. And anyone else who agrees with her that homosexuality is "disgusting" is also right to state their personal values. She also said that she always speaks as a philosopher, but that contextual statement certainly does not mean that every personal thing she also values and has expressed is a dogmatic philosophical rule. You know this, Chris. Rand was not the cause of the tragic problems of dependent dogmatists and poor subjective thinkers among her followers. I have begun to wonder if you were one of those who were emotionally distressed and psychologically upset by her personal response to this matter.

Chris: I didn't even know what Rand's views on the subject were until 1994, when I heard them for the first time in a tape of the Ford Hall Forum that was recorded back in the 1970s. What she said made absolutely no difference to me, in terms of my personal choices or basic sexual orientation. It has never made one difference to me what Rand liked sexually.

But Rand still should have made the distinction between a personal attitude and a philosophical one. Knowing, as she did, the problems of the "Objectivist ritualist," she should have been very careful about making such a sweeping generalization.

Ellen: It is very likely that maturity is the main issue in evaluating this matter. Much as I valued Peikoff's Understanding Objectivism, I did not need him to tell me how to evaluate the fact that I did not have to love skyscrapers with a passion just because Rand did, or comply with her tastes in order to become an Objectivist. Nor is anyone justified in claiming that homosexuality is caused "biologically" and is not open to choice - that claim is unproved, so volition and psychology is still the "rational option" in this context. Rand thought so too based in her context, and she did not have to state that fact again publicly -- it is evident in the principles of her philosophy. In other words, those who understood the principles didn't need to be taught by anyone to distinguish between the philosophical principles and the personal choices about issues of these kinds. I'm sure that Chris will never agree with me about the evolution of ideas. I do not agree with his idea that there is the "evolution of ideas". He wrote, "Yes, there is a body of thought that Rand originated and that she called Objectivism. But Objectivism does not and cannot end with Rand's writings." Then, off he goes into his usual "intellectual tradition" routine. This is what I object to, and I made it clear why I respected those associated with Peikoff who respect Rand's body of work as her own -- distinguished from their own personal body of work that may be judged as consistent [or not] with the Objectivist principles -- which IS ultimately consistent with reality. Chris and others may think as they wish in terms of intellectual traditions, Marxist traditions, Platonist traditions, and Aristotelian traditions, but I do not. I really abhor the whole idea of "traditionalism" and "ritualism", collectivism and tribalism, ethnicity and culturalism. I am opposed to that style of thinking in every form it takes.

Chris: You are free to abhor the idea... but you effectively wipe out the study of intellectual history in the process.

Ellen: There is only Individualism. And Objectivism is a philosophy of Individualism. [i offer a little note of appreciation to all those who give Rand full credit for her body of work, and who never intend to change it into something she did not advocate in principle.] Future consistent applications of principles will necessarily be the work of other individuals, and that is to their credit. And I do not think, as he said, that Chris and I are merely coming at this from different angles; I think we disagree totally on the importance of "traditions' and "sub-cultures" It is also clear that Chris did imply that Peikoff's ideas on "rational, contextual options, was first made by Branden's - because of the presentation dates Chris quotes. The dates are totally irrelevant. Branden solicited a relationship with Rand a few years before introducing Peikoff to her when he was a youthful 17. That too is irrelevant. My point is this: Peikoff is the professional philosopher to whom Rand trusted to take care of her philosophical interests. Whatever Branden learned from her is to his credit -- UNTIL he repudiated the principles of Objectivism by his immoral actions. Anything he wrote after Rand repudiated him publicly is totally irrelevant to the philosophy Objectivism.

Chris: I merely noted that Branden said it before Peikoff. The facts speak for themselves.

Ellen: Dear Chris, understanding the sexuality depicted by Rand's sex scenes cannot be understood the way that you make it sound, as if it's "anything goes". Sexual foreplay and orgasms, which may be good, bad and indifferent, begin and end in the physical realm of pleasure. There is so much more in "sexuality" of the mind and its values Rand's depiction of sexuality as masculinity and femininity is exactly what homosexuals, and many heterosexuals, will never understand. Pity!

Chris: I think your own sweeping generalization is mistaken.

Ellen: I'm sure you will continue the survey and write what you intended to conclude in the first place, but it will say nothing about Objectivism, and not likely add much to the study of homosexuality other than personal anecdotes. So, listen up, you will not be able to prove that Objectivism philosophically sanctions homosexuality.

Chris: Not my goal. When I said it was "neutral," I meant it. Neutral means NEUTRAL, not pro or con. I do, however, believe, that whatever the orientation of somebody, Objectivism can be a fruitful philosophy of life for any individual wise enough to grasp and practice its basic principles.

Ellen: As to me, I did say here that I would write something about my personal experiences regarding this issue for your series. I offered that idea hastily, and I have changed my mind. What I had to say was not about homosexuality; it was about my own emotional responses to masculinity and femininity. That's my sexual psychology, and I have no reason to discuss that private value for public collective consumption. The reason is that I have thought seriously about your project, and your goals, and I thoroughly disagree with sociological surveys in general, and with your title, methods, criteria, and personal agenda. All you will achieve with a collectivist approach to this issue will be a collectivist consensus. So what does that achieve? Collective subjectivism.

Chris: Thank you for your consideration.

Ellen: I think our opposing views are quite obvious now, so you, Chris, are not required to spend a moment of your time in responding. Ellen

Chris: And thank you for your sarcasm.

Ellen: You admit that not all of Rand's choices should be viewed as Objectivist *rules* of behavior, and that those who treat them as such are dogmatic "ritualists" -- they are not Objectivists in principle. Now you write that if we articulate their contradictions then "we might inspire them to philosophical integrity on this matter. We all, those who accept volition and who read Rand, know that people are able to "check their premises". But why then, need you ask for all personal opinions and experiences re homosexuality by means of e-mails etc. to do a survey to prove what you already know is true.

Chris: Because there is a story to be told; that you do not recognize the value of telling that story is your prerogative. Nobody has a gun to your head to read it.

Ellen: So, why don't you just write a book, as a self-declared Objectivist, and explain that Objectivism leaves sexual proclivities including homosexuality up to individual volitional choices -- where anything goes as long as those involved act voluntarily, i.e., without the initiation of physical force.

Chris: Sounds like a good idea!

Cheers,

Chris

“ Ayn Rand's answer:

"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."

Second Renaissance, the last time I looked, was selling the audiotape of this Q&A session as the source of "Any Rand's views" on the subject. Peikoff seems to have worked out a rationalization that his tolerance isn't really a repudiation of this.”

End quote

And as BB noted in a more personal view:

“She did give her reasons for considering homosexuality to be immoral, and by the way they had nothing whatever to do with procreation. She was convinced, as you know, that men and woman are, by their very nature, the kind of beings who can and need to experience romantic, sexual love – by which she meant romantic and sexual love directed toward the opposite sex. She had so exalted a vision of such love that it truly seemed to her an obscenity, a flat contradiction of their natures, an attempt to escape and evade who they really were, for people to be drawn to their own sex. She despised the notion that a man would see, as his highest value, another man -- rather than himself. Or that a woman would not seek her highest ideal in a man, but in another woman. She saw this as a perversion of the self, hence as neurotic and immoral.”

End quote

Jim Peron, in part, answered the natural, unnatural issue:

“There have been frequent references to the nature of the sexual organs. Terms such as “design” “intent” and “purpose” have been used. For Objectivists this is bad terminology. The use of “design” implies a designer or creator. It is a religious concept not an Objectivist one. When we speak of “intent” we imply a intelligence behind the object in question. The intent of a knife is to cut because the creator of the knife “designed” it that way. This is really the same thing all over again. So too with “purpose” which is just another term for “intent”. All such concepts imply a creative intelligence which has set down specific laws for man to follow and any violation of that law is thus immoral. These are theological, not philosophical concepts in the Objectivist sense of the word.”

End quote

From: BBfromM@aol.com

To: atlantis@wetheliving.com

Subject: Re: ATL: Reply to Chris

Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 16:55:35 EDT

In response to Chris' post, Ellen Moore wrote:

<< the Objectivist philosophy only says "sex is good". You are mistaken to mix up and confuse philosophy with either psychology or "culture". >>

Ellen, I don't think this is a valid point about Objectivist philosophy. Ayn Rand said much more than that "sex is good." Note that she granted that there *is* an Objectivist psychology, which is consistent with and follows from the premises of Objectivism. Rationality in thinking, in acting, and in sexual behavior, are Objectivist virtues. And in delineating her views of sex, especially in ATLAS SHRUGGED, she made it crystal clear that the ideas and actions she presented as those of her positive characters were both philosophically and psychologically rational. Even in Galt's speech, intended as a summary of her philosophy, she includes her theories about sex.

Barbara

From: "Peter Reidy" <peterreidy@hotmail.com>

To: PinkCrash7@aol.com, atlantis@wetheliving.com

Subject: Re: ATL: Gays: The difference between sexual desire and action

Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 15:37:11

Debbie Clark writes "Historically, homosexuality has never been permitted in the military...servicemen have always been discharged for being suspected violators."

Is this true? My understanding is that in the US military, this became grounds for discharge at the time of WW1 and a criminal offense during WW2 - neither of these exactly the dawn of historical time. There's some story, whose details I don't remember, about George Washington, but that would establish only his policy for troops under his command.

Peter

From: Debbie Clark <dclark@life.edu>

To: atlantis@wetheliving.com

Subject: Re: ATL: Gays: The difference between sexual

Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 12:46:38 -0700

I don't know for sure going that far back, though I had the impression that Sodomy has always been an offense under the UCMJ. I'm also not sure how relevant the policy in that time period is in relation to our present society considering that the culture of that time was drastically different than our own and matters of sexuality was usually kept discrete within one's personal and family life.

However, according to an article I looked up, at http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/military_history.html

it states:

"Historically, the military did not officially exclude or discharge homosexuals from its ranks, although sodomy (usually defined as anal and sometimes oral sex between men) was considered a criminal offense as early as Revolutionary War times. Throughout U.S. history, campaigns have purged military units of persons suspected of engaging in homosexual acts."

Debbie

From: "William Dwyer" <wsdwyer@home.com>

To: <Atlantis@wetheliving.com>

Subject: ATL: Gaze at the military

Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 09:37:37 -0700

Regarding the question of gays in the military, it is my understanding that the original reason for banning them was the potential for blackmail -- at least that was the story when I enlisted back in the '50's. At that time,

homosexuals were very much in the closet, so they were considered prime targets for blackmail, if discovered. At least that was the rationale. Whether it was simply a cover for some other, ulterior reason (like homophobia) is another question.

Of course, the blackmail issue wouldn't apply if the homosexuality were open and acknowledged. So potential enlistees who were candid enough to admit their homosexuality when asked about it would be the least likely targets for blackmail. Conversely, those who lied about it and were thus admitted into the ranks were, by their very secrecy, far more susceptible targets. So the policy had the ironic effect of excluding gays who could not be blackmailed and of admitting those who could.

Bill

From: Travis Klein <travisk@U.Arizona.EDU>

CC: atlantis@wetheliving.com

Subject: Re: ATL: Gays: The difference between sexual desire and action

Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 10:11:02 -0700 (MST)

On Mon, 27 Aug 2001, Peter Reidy wrote:

The Spartans and many other Greek armies of the ancient world not only allowed homosexuality, but encouraged it. They fought, then played hard! Also many Native American tribes referred to their gay members as special people with a unique perspective. They were honored.

Watch Travis Klein's Dog and Pony Show

Live every Wednesday at 9pm MST on Tucson Cox cable 73

Or worldwide on Real Video at

http://209.181.120.2:8080/ramgen/encoder/ch73.rm

From: "Peter Reidy" <peterreidy@hotmail.com>

To: atlantis@wetheliving.com, adsmith@uwo.ca

Subject: Re: ATL: Re: Gaze at the military

Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 23:07:31

"I think that your anecdote supports my thesis by illustrating how sexism (in particular, sexism-statism) might lead to homosexuality. Make male-ness unappealing through things like the draft and young men will have difficulty in accepting their gender assignment."

Here we have the kind of testable hypothesis that natural and social scientists love. The draft has been out of operation in the US since 1973; an entire generation of men has been born and has grown to adulthood since then. Your thesis predicts a decline in the incidence of homosexuality. (Yes, young men are aware that it could come back, but it's still gone and hasn't been a realistic prospect in all those years. Your thesis predicts a real, measurable decline, if not necessarily extinction.) Do you have any documentation that this has happened?

I have a hunch that you have about as much evidence for your claim as Betty Friedan has for hers (in "The Feminine Mystique"), that the way homosexuality had &q

[kiaer.ts]

Peter, do you have the permission of each of those people to reprint their words here?

And what is your opinion of the reasons for and value of your own homosexual encounters?

[Ellen Stuttle]

Here are a bunch of old letters from what I consider a precursor to Objectivist Living, Atlantis. The following are just for folks “really” interested in the subject.

Peter Taylor

Alert to anyone skimming through that long post of Peter's and, not noticing the fine print, seeing the name "Ellen" prominently:

The "Ellen" mostly featured was Ellen Moore. (A number of times some awkwardness for me developed over my having the same first name as Ellen Moore. There was a third person also named Ellen. She and I took to using "EllenS" or "EllenL" trying to be sure of being differentiated from "EllenM.")

Ellen

[Reidy]

Some of this old ATL: material is interesting in connection with the recent Hardin-vs-the-world discussion of empirical testing in psychology.

[Peter]

Ted Keer wrote:

Peter, do you have the permission of each of those people to reprint their words here?

end quote

No, but I do have the moderator’s permission, dating from 12/23/2009. I won’t reprint that private conversation.

I actually deleted some posts just in case in might embarrass the posters. I probably should have deleted more, but was pressed for time.

(I am not kidding – five sheep showed up across the street and then moved into my back yard. I gave them some lamb and goat food and cracked corn I keep for my pet three legged deer, and they stayed while I tried to get animal control and the humane society but neither was answering the phone. I finally called the Sheriff’s department who said no one had called in any missing sheep. A neighbor said they might belong to someone she knew of and she would get her farmer husband involved when he came home. I finally went out to get them some fresh water, but when the hose came on they ran for their lives, never to be seen again.)

Ted wrote:

And what is your opinion of the reasons for and value of your own homosexual encounters?

End quote

Who's the black private dick

That's a sex machine to all the chicks?

SHAFT!

Ya damn right!

Who is the man that would risk his neck

For his brother man?

SHAFT!

Can you dig it?

Who's the cat that won't cop out

When there's danger all about?

SHAFT!

Right On!

They say this cat Shaft is a bad mother

SHUT YOUR MOUTH!

I'm talkin' 'bout Shaft.

THEN WE CAN DIG IT!

He's a complicated man

But no one understands him but his woman

JOHN SHAFT!

Nuff said?

[kiaer.ts]

Ted Keer wrote:

Peter, do you have the permission of each of those people to reprint their words here?

end quote

No, but I do have the moderator's permission, dating from 12/23/2009. I won't reprint that private conversation.

I actually deleted some posts just in case in might embarrass the posters. I probably should have deleted more, but was pressed for time.

(I am not kidding – five sheep showed up across the street and then moved into my back yard. I gave them some lamb and goat food and cracked corn I keep for my pet three legged deer, and they stayed while I tried to get animal control and the humane society but neither was answering the phone. I finally called the Sheriff's department who said no one had called in any missing sheep. A neighbor said they might belong to someone she knew of and she would get her farmer husband involved when he came home. I finally went out to get them some fresh water, but when the hose came on they ran for their lives, never to be seen again.)

Ted wrote:

And what is your opinion of the reasons for and value of your own homosexual encounters?

End quote

Who's the black private dick

That's a sex machine to all the chicks?

SHAFT!

Ya damn right!

Who is the man that would risk his neck

For his brother man?

SHAFT!

Can you dig it?

Who's the cat that won't cop out

When there's danger all about?

SHAFT!

Right On!

They say this cat Shaft is a bad mother

SHUT YOUR MOUTH!

I'm talkin' 'bout Shaft.

THEN WE CAN DIG IT!

He's a complicated man

But no one understands him but his woman

JOHN SHAFT!

Nuff said?

So you like black guys?

[Peter]

Ted Keer Freudian Slippped:

So you like black guys?

End quote

. . . particularly the experience of hearing voices, are a common and often prominent feature of psychosis. Hallucinated voices may talk about, or to the person . . . to create a synthesis of the various mental disorders identified by 19th-century psychiatrists, by grouping diseases together based on classification . . . No, Ted! And would you please stop whispering in my ear. That is SOOO gay.

Ted, what did I say that so terribly offended you? I am actually curious about that. If you knew me a little better, you would know I am not gay but I am a loose cannon. I say exactly what I think. I am proud of what I do. I brag about myself because I am so sure, that whatever I do is correct, simply because I do it, sort of like Henry VIII.

Oh, oh. I see Ellen Stuttle nee Jung is reading this thread and she may decide to psychoanalyze me. Now cut that out, Ellen! And that’s Ellen S., not Ellen M. (may she rest in peace)

Peter Reidy wrote (and that’s Peter R. not Peter T.)

Some of this old ATL material is interesting in connection with the recent Hardin-vs-the-world discussion of empirical testing in psychology.

End quote

I am not familiar with that. Could you give us a rundown on what’s new?

Fromm Wikipedia:

Empirical method is generally taken to mean the collection of data on which to base a theory or derive a conclusion in science. It is part of the scientific method, but is often mistakenly assumed to be synonymous with the experimental method. The empirical method is not sharply defined and is often contrasted with the precision of the experimental method, where data are derived from the systematic manipulation of variables in an experiment. Some of the difficulty in discussing the empirical method is from the ambiguity of the meaning of its linguist root: empiric.

End quote

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter T. Rex

[kiaer.ts]

Offend me? It doesn't bother me if you have a thing for Shaft. Why would it?

After that first post, I was thinking of asking you if you ever think anything you don't say. The loose cannon admission is answer enough.

[Peter]

Ted wrote:

After that first post, I was thinking of asking you if you ever think anything you don't say. The loose cannon admission is answer enough.

end quote

Well if you claim that is "answer enough" do you think that will shut me up? As long as insults are in good taste and in fun I don't mind them. Ghs is a master at them.

Did I offend you because you are gay or because you are black? Or are you a transexual from Transylvania? The five dollar gift to Christine O'Donnell sounds like a good idea. I am trying to think of what to say, that they must then print, because I paid for the privilege. She better watch out. It is a cheap way for Democratic operatives to slyly get some jabs in.

Peter

[Reidy]

This is getting to be like backstage at a drag show. You're both lucky that you can't direct a browser to scratch somebody's eyes out.

[kiaer.ts]

Ted wrote:

After that first post, I was thinking of asking you if you ever think anything you don't say. The loose cannon admission is answer enough.

end quote

Well if you claim that is "answer enough" do you think that will shut me up? As long as insults are in good taste and in fun I don't mind them. Ghs is a master at them.

Did I offend you because you are gay or because you are black? Or are you a transexual from Transylvania? The five dollar gift to Christine O'Donnell sounds like a good idea. I am trying to think of what to say, that they must then print, because I paid for the privilege. She better watch out. It is a cheap way for Democratic operatives to slyly get some jabs in.

Peter

I think you are cute, with your piglatin signature, and your half baked "not that there's anything wrong with that" comments on homosexuality.

I don't know why you are assuming you have offended me, or that I am insulting you.

As for the 'causes' of homosexualioty, I read half your spam above. It was largely well-meaning but uniformed. Consider that (1) Marriage and procreation have been socially mandatory in most cultures at most times. This in no way prevents buggery on the side. With the modern fad of exclusive homosexuality, any 'genes' for exclusive homosexuality will breed themselves out of the population much more quickly than they would have when everyone got married. (2) There are theories that bisexuals mature early, breed more readily, and at a younger age, and (3) That a gene which makes women more attracted to virile men has the effect, when expressed in their sons and brothers of making them attracted to men as well.

In any case, a search for biological explanations of 'gayness' as expressed in modern Western culture, which is a cultural construct, is absurd. Looked at through history, a self-identified 'gay community' is an aberration. (Although transvestite priesthoods and shamanics traditions are notably widespread.) It is also a mistake to classify casual bisexuality and military-society homoeroticism with phenomena such as transvestism as if they were one a unitary phenomena. Facultative bisexuality is the human norm. Sexuality is just like cultural norms in food. We think eating dog and horse is unimaginable, while others are disgusted by cow and lobster, largely because we are raised that way.

Edited October 11, 2010 by Ted Keer