About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


Post 20

Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 3:43amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hong wrote "Then why childbirth is so painful and dangerous?"

Hong, it isn't among most African and many Asian populations.
I have "delivered" babies to such women when a couple of quick "pushes" and I just about caught the baby, with a Mum ready to get up and go back to work!.  The "Danger and Pain" seems to have evolved erlatiavely recently among Western women, and may be related to changes occuring in baby-size due to nutritional improvements, or changes in musculature of women, (few western women are as flexible as African women, or have as many stretch fibres in their muscles, also the pelvic bone structure is different, which is why Africans win all the track events at the Olympics!)
Cass 


Post 21

Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 9:02amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

The latest evolutionary theory for homosexuality (that I have heard) is that homosexuals help the females with the rearing and caring of the progeny. For example, a friend of mine observed two male ducks living with one female duck. When the ducklings had been reared, the two males left the female. I am not sure whether this theory could be applied to human beings or not, although some homosexual couples do seem to have the urge to raise children together.

 

However, a more interesting question I think is why did Greek and Roman cultures find homosexuality to be normal or acceptable? Famously Greek men even thought that homosexual love was preferable to the love between a man and a woman. I know that one reason is that Greek men used to fight together in a type of buddy-system, whereby they really cared for and looked after one another. Therefore these types of close loving relationships between men were actually encouraged and became legendary. And what about Greek women? I saw a documentary that suggested that there was also certain religious ceremonies attended only by Greek women (who were normally not allowed by their queer men folk outside the house) - where they indulged in their own homosexual tendencies. 

 

Interesting too is that as soon as Greek democracy was banned by the Romans, homosexuality also declined in Greece. This was because the main place for such events were at symposia meant for the discussion of politics and ideas. That does not mean that ALL Greek men necessarily engaged in homosexual acts (probably most of them didn't) - but they did admire the beauty of the naked male figure - and believed that love between men was the most pure form of love there was.

 

It seems that only since the domination of Judaeo-Christian morality in our culture have we come to consider male homosexuality especially to be both un-natural and disgusting.


Post 22

Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 11:23amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Pete,

You said and asked,

"I believe that gay people are capable of entering into sexual relations with one another in a rational manner.  This means that they have the ability to meet a potential partner, abstain from sex during the initial courtship, get tested for STD's together once they realize they want to get intimate with one another, and then engage in an exclusive relationship wherein they can then have all the sex they want in a risk-free environment.  Do you disagree with this, or am I just misreading your comments?"

Of course I agree with that. One can do anything they have chosen to do rationally, even if the thing they have chosen cannot be rationally justified. Two homosexuals can do just what you described, but I do not believe the choice to do it is correct.

But my comment, "check your premises," did not refer to that, but to your statement, "That a substantial portion of gay men engage in promiscuous behavior is irrelevant."
 
I thought of asking you, "irrelevant to what?" If I had, I think your answer would be, it is irrelevant to those homosexuals who are not promiscuous. That may be true, but, to my arguments I think that is irrelevant. Most homosexuals are very promiscuous, and those you speak of are exceptions and not the way homosexuality is usually manifested in individuals, not even Objectivist ones.

Now I have a question for you. Why shouldn't homosexuals, or for that matter, anyone be promiscuous? Do you think promiscuity is wrong? If you do, why?

Regi


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 23

Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 7:58amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Pete,
 
Bellow is a post I steal from Yahoo SOLO group with the reference you may be interested in. I haven't read the book yet, though it sounds really interesting. 
 
--- In SOLO_forum@yahoogroups.com, "michael brown" <foosi@c...> wrote:
>
> "biological exuberance" by bagemihl seems to be one of the
stanadard
> references on this - documents the amazing extent of homosexual,
> bisexual, and multiple-partner sexuality in the non-human animal
> world.
>
>
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-
> 8&q=bagemihl+biological+exuberance
>


 
 
Cass,
 
I think historically there were significantly larger portion of women who died in childbirth. And just one or two generations ago, infant mortality rate was still very high. Families usually tried to have as many children as possible, but a lot of them didn't survive to adulthood. This is very obvious from the well documented Royal family trees. For common people it could only be worse. In older or not so older times, people always looked for robust, big-boned and well-fed healthy women in wives, quite opposite to today's beauty standards, but well justified.
 
Once human does survive to the adulthood, they are indeed one of the most powerful creatures on earth. So as a species, we were rather balanced. And with the advances of modern medicine and technology, we are more than well balanced.
 

Thinking about homosexuality, as abnormal (OK, I use this word in the sense that they are just not the norm) as it is, there really isn't much disadvantage in it to survive in the world and there may even be some advantages. Just think about what Alexander the Great, Tchaikovsky, etc. had achieved!  I wonder were homosexuality viewed as abnormal in ancient times as in today ?

(Edit to add: I see Marcus has already answered my last question).

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 9/14, 12:43pm)


Post 24

Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 1:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"I thought of asking you, "irrelevant to what?" If I had, I think your answer would be, it is irrelevant to those homosexuals who are not promiscuous. That may be true, but, to my arguments I think that is irrelevant."

oh, so you were not arguing that homosexual behavior is wrong, or abnormal, or unnatural, or whatever. you were arguing that promiscuous homosexual behavior was those things?

you should have said so. we were under the impression that you were speaking about homosexuality in general, not just promiscuous homosexuality.



Post 25

Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 5:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Marcus, I am not very knowledgeable on Greek history.  I know that religious conservatives often claim that homosexuality's widespread acceptance in Greek society is what ultimately led to that civilization's demise. Every time I've heard this claim made, though, it is never really followed up with any detailed evidence of how or why this was the case.  The implied syllogism from what I've heard goes something like this:

Homosexuality was widely accepted in Ancient Greece,

Ancient Greece didn't survive as a civilization,

Therefore civilisations that widely accept homosexuality don't survive.  

It's reasonable to infer, however, that there are many variables involved in terms what causes a civilization to collapse or endure.  I remain suspicious of any claims that alternative sexual practices were the deciding factor for Ancient Greece.  Nonetheless, I have listened to homosexuality debates where conservatives raise this point, but the liberals never really try to debunk it for some reason.  Anyone care to offer a more advanced argument for either side?


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 26

Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 6:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Regi asks:

Now I have a question for you. Why shouldn't homosexuals, or for that matter, anyone be promiscuous? Do you think promiscuity is wrong? If you do, why?
For the purposes of my response, I will define promiscuity as sexual relations with someone on a non-exclusive or limited-exclusive basis, and/or having multiple sexual partners in this regard.  (Note that my definition of "sexual relations" is broader in scope than Bill Clinton's; 'sexual relations' shall refer to everything from heavy petting on up).

I believe promiscuity is wrong.  Sex is the highest level of intimacy human beings can achieve with one another.  Sex is identical to a capitalist transaction: a voluntary exchange of value for value to mutual benefit.    Conventional "good sex" wisdom says that an ideal sexual encounter is one where you receive a sustained state of immense pleasure, followed by a climax - and - your own actions simultaneously induce an equivalent reaction in your partner.  Capitalism at its finest indeed.

Some of the values traded are obviously physical.  Hopefully, the parties involved feel some level of physical attraction to one another.  The look and feel of the others body contributes to the sensuality and intensity of the moment, as do the actions and demeanors of the respective parties.   During the act, reality as you typically know it is transcended and a state of ecstacy is (hopefully) achieved.

But when the act is over, reality sets back in.  Speaking from the perspective of a male, there is no more defining moment than immediately after orgasm.  It's a moment of immense vulnerability. For a few moments, you are incapable of sexual arousal, and you see the situation for what it really is.  If you do not connect with the other person on a level higher than the physical, you will be reminded of that fact instantly, and you will not want to stick around.  Also, if you were engaging in risky activity, the chilling reminder of potential negative consequences comes on with a vengeance.

However, if you are already in a deep state of romantic love with the other person (and your relationship is exclusive), the moments after sex are extremely comforting and secure.  The fact that you can lay there with the other person and know that you've connected with someone on both a mental and physical level is the ultimate recognition of self esteem.  

If sex is the ultimate integration of mind and body, than any sexual encounter that fails to integrate the two - no matter how erotic - cheapens the value of what a sexual experience can be. 


Post 27

Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 7:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hong, I can't get your link to work.

Post 28

Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 10:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Pete,

Good points, but I find that your definition doesn't quite match your argument:


For the purposes of my response, I will define promiscuity as sexual relations with someone on a non-exclusive or limited-exclusive basis, and/or having multiple sexual partners in this regard.


The missing link is that you never justify the implicit assumption that a multiple-partner relationship leads necessarily leads to a relationship bereft of any value save for the physical. Can you argue that it is not possible to be “in a deep state of romantic love” with more than one person simultaneously?

Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 29

Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 7:07amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Pete,
Try this

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=bagemihl+biological+exuberance


Post 30

Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 8:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Nature, I will attempt to formulate that argument when I have time.  It requires a somewhat lengthy reply, the likes of which I don't have time for at the moment.  It might have to wait until next week since I'm going on a short trip soon.

Post 31

Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 4:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
If you don't mind me pulling out a side issue, I listened to Barbara Branden's Principles of Efficient Thinking course, courtesy of the Toronto O.I.S.E. library which had the complete set of 'em, back in 1992 or so. I even transcribed them by hand for future reference. [The notebook's long gone.] Fascinating listen.

Post 32

Friday, September 17, 2004 - 2:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit


Daniel, I for one don't at all mind you raising a side issue. Thanks.

Barbara

Post 33

Friday, September 17, 2004 - 3:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Glad to.  

Post 34

Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 7:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Barbara,

This article came up as a random past one.  Actually, it's come up before but I didn't respond at that time.

I just wanted to say Thank You.  Thank you for your taking the respond to a reply that wasn't even to your work.  It shows a commitment to truth that I'm not surprised to find in you. 

Thank you particularly for this portion:

Discovering that you had the desires of a heterosexual, you then proceeded to act in accordance with what you experienced as your sexual nature, just as a homosexual acts in accordance with what he expreriences as his sexual nature.
I've been "out" to myself and everyone else for 10 years this July.  The aspect of the issue that you've highlighted in the above quote is something I've thought about, in my own words of course, many times over the years.  It was refreshing to see that the issue is so clear to another human being. 

Jason


Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 35

Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 10:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Barbara,

I am going to hitch a ride on Jason's post (it came up in my unread posts). This was an article I was going to get around to sometime, but didn't yet. There is so much catch-up reading I am doing.

I enjoyed your article as usual (I am a shameless fan), but boy, do you have patience. I started reading the posts but stopped in the middle of Mr. Firehammer's first one, which was longer than your article. My quibble meter went right through the roof.

I recently visited a site staged by him with a lot of the posters in this thread posting over there. They are the ones I mentioned in another place who sneer at "group hugs" and homosexuals and so forth at SOLO. (I was flattered that some things from my own posts were being quoted and condemned over there - it felt good to tell the truth - so gimmee a hug everybody).    //;-)

Anyway, joking aside, one line of his you quoted jumped out from the page at me:

"The only mental processes I am concerned with are conscious ones and those under our control."

Control. That seems to be the key word I have encountered with many people who profess to be Objectivists, but who always argue in circles. They don't like to be out of control of anything. Not of themselves. Not of other people. Not of other people's sex. Not even of reality.

Life comes with so much that is beyond our control - even our inherent nature as human beings is beyond our control (two arms, two legs, head, and so forth - including out thinking faculty). But they normally dismiss these things as not important.

Especially like that quote dismissing the subconscious. Ignoring the subconscious is simply silly - it bites you on the ass sometimes even when you do get a handle on it.

When homosexuality is discussed, I have seen these quibblers uphold that the reproductive nature of genitals determine psychological health, if I understand the essence of their basic premise. To be fair, it even might be the case with heteros. But life also comes with all kinds of exceptions: tall, short, super-endowed here and there, geniuses, mentally handicapped and so forth.

And gays.

Maybe you can "control" standard phenomena by reason alone, i.e. claiming that some aspect or other is the only correct form. But you can't control the exception. You can only try to understand it (which is what these uptight moralizers should be doing all along anyway).

I will admit to skimming, but most of what I read in these posts over here was quibbling (arguing nonessentials where essentials should be dealt with). Most of what I saw over at their house was bitching about SOLO and bitching at each other.

Doesn't that sound a whole lot like what they sneeringly claim that gays do all the time?

Michael




Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 36

Friday, March 25, 2005 - 12:06amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Jason, I appreciate your compliment, and your "thank you" -- for which I thank you.

Michael, you hit on something important when you wrote: "Control. That seems to be the key word I have encountered with many people who profess to be Objectivists, but who always argue in circles. They don't like to be out of control of anything. Not of themselves. Not of other people. Not of other people's sex. Not even of reality."

I'm convinced that is precisely what such people cannot bear. Well, the joke's on them. We are not in control of everything. We are not certain of everything -- which is another way of saying the same thing. I once wrote that my definition of maturity is the ability to live with uncertainty. We had better be able to live with it, because uncertainty is a fact of life. The only way we can pretend to ourselves that it is not, is to build a structure of dogma and true beliefs that will not in fact shield us from anything.

I think that this desperate need for certainty is in fact the mark of a desperate uncertainty and of a lack of maturity. Life is what it is. We know many things, and there are many things we would like to know that we do not yet know. Pretending to ourselves and others that we have all the answers changes nothing.

Barbara


Post 37

Friday, March 25, 2005 - 12:23amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I once wrote that my definition of maturity is the ability to live with uncertainty. We had better be able to live with it, because uncertainty is a fact of life.

Agreed.

I once had a strange argument with a good friend about this. We were drinking wine and discussing certainty inside the house and I asked him if he was certain his mailbox was standing where it had always stood. We couldn't see the mailbox from the dining room. He assured me that it was and could not entertain the possibility that his mailbox could well have been dug up and taken away, or razed. It agitated the hell out of him to think that his mailbox might not be where it's supposed to be.

That his mailbox was there is nothing more than speculation. It's excellent speculation as far as it goes (why would his mailbox be gone?) but without direct perceptual evidence he can't be certain about it. Reason brings us certainty in many things and it provides us with speculation and educated guesses about everything else.

We don't have X-ray vision and we can't fly when we flap our arms. It's a mistake to expect too much of ourselves.


Post 38

Friday, March 25, 2005 - 1:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
One of the neat things about Solo is that old threads pop up on the front page again when a new post is added. I discovered this one in that way and read it from beginning to "end." Cool!

In any case, quoth Pete:

"Question: Why did nature make sex pleasurable?

"Answer: To ensure that humans reproduce and the species lives on."

Several people appear to have grabbed this point and moved forward with it, but ...

Is there any particular reason to impute motive, purpose or intent to nature? It seems to me that doing so smacks of supernaturalism -- of a deity or designer.

Nature didn't "make sex pleasurable" for some kind of purpose. Specimens which FOUND sex pleasurable were the ones which were more likely to have sex -- and therefore to reproduce and pass on the traits which make sex pleasurable. No "purpose in nature" required.

Neither, assuming that there's a genetic component to homosexuality, is there any need for justification in "nature's purpose" for it. If it's a genetic trait, then that's just what it is.

Maybe it's a recessive that hasn't been eliminated from the gene pool because it is often carried but not always expressed; or maybe it's a dominant but one which has nonetheless survived as, down through human history, homosexuals have reproduced in order to conform with social mores ... or just because they _wanted_ to reproduce, and were willing to do what it took to reproduce even though it didn't strike them as sexually fulfilling. Or any number or combination of reasons.

One of the common misconceptions about natural selection/evolution is that it operates on a criterion of "survival of the fittest." That's just not so. It operates on a criterion of "survival of the _fit_." True, some genetic mutations or traits are so counter-survival that those with them (and their genes) don't survive or are unlikely to reproduce and pass on the trait. Being born without lungs, for example, isn't likely to be a genetic trait that's passed on. But genetic traits which aren't radically counter-survival are likely to remain in the pool even if they don't come to dominate or characterize all specimens in the pool.

Regards,
Tom Knapp

Post 39

Friday, March 25, 2005 - 1:56amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Barbara wrote: “…We are not in control of everything. We are not certain of everything -- which is another way of saying the same thing. I once wrote that my definition of maturity is the ability to live with uncertainty. We had better be able to live with it, because uncertainty is a fact of life. The only way we can pretend to ourselves that it is not, is to build a structure of dogma and true beliefs that will not in fact shield us from anything.

I think that this desperate need for certainty is in fact the mark of a desperate uncertainty and of a lack of maturity. Life is what it is. We know many things, and there are many things we would like to know that we do not yet know. Pretending to ourselves and others that we have all the answers changes nothing.”

 

Hi Barbara,

 

I understand your meaning and agree completely with the importance of “…there are many things…that we do not yet know.” Given that we cannot know everything I personally think that it is very important to integrate non-contradictory knowledge, and resolve issues that are most important for us. There seems to be a semantic issue with “certainty”, or for that matter “moral perfection”. I was raised as a “beach kid” and have never had a religious bone in my body, I cannot conceive of “certainty” in any other form than from a reason-based context.

 

I use “certainty” all of the time in my work: is that color true? Did I get the proportions right? Does the emotion register? Is light crucial? Is form?

 

I have also found that the more ambitious the project it becomes absolutely crucial to be certain of your foundation. I don’t mean that you tell yourself that you are certain but that you take all the avenues of research and check and double check that your basis is correct for the goal you have in mind.

 

Certainty, for me, is being on target.

 

Michael


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.