Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E who wrote (31376)	2/20/1999 11:03:00 PM
From: Bullhorn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Whatever-hetro, pysco-/sico-spare me the details......

To: E who wrote (31376)	2/20/1999 11:35:00 PM
From: nihil	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Oh, there's a little hyperbole there, of course. And everything today in sex is based on precise definitions. Notice how I said "purely heterosexual" which to me means "incapable of having strong emotions of love with persons of the same sex." Save yourself a lot of grief and stop reading if you put the twist of actually having sex with perosns of the same sex. The big problem is that in much of the English speaking world, the admission of homosexual love is a shipping offense. Churchill, that wonderful manly youth, attended Harrow, you know. And everything I've read about Harrow (see the memoir by suggests that Harrow and Eton and all the public schools of England were hotbeds of juvenile homosexuality for centuries. The younger boy who was assigned to serve the older boy was called his "fag." Coincidence? I think not. With this definition, one can do textual analysis of the writings of anyone you please, and measure the attitude of the author toward his characters. I would claim that anyman who writes much of his prose about women, especially about women not considered purely as sexual objects, leans strongly to his feminine side and meets my definition. Joyce's Finnegan's Wake reeks of homosexuality. (Don't waste you time looking, its there. Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man is less obvious, but its a strongly homosexual book. Ulysses is in there slugging. I am making a point about the texture of the mind -- a writer whose mind is capable of loving persons without a gag or kapu against loving persons of same sex can connect with far more people than one who views women simply as unresponsive and non-autonomous victims. I defy you to read Dickens Christmas carol without seeing Dickens' pity for young Scrooge, and Tiny Tim, and even Bob Cratchet as embued with love. He seems uninterested in women. His affection for Tim is overpowering, cloying, not fatherly or charitable. Of course, I could be wrong. I think the greatest thing about Dicken's is his capacity to indwell in young boys -- like David C. Oliver T. etc. He is far too interested in boys to be considered "purely heterosexual". Nothing wrong with it in my opinion. I am certainly not a homophobe. I merely say that bisexuals have the opportunity to generalize strongly sexual love (the only love I think that should be called love) to everyone. It is worth noting that FDR was a mama's boy all his life, wore dresses as a kid, went to Groton (an American Eton) and Harvard (a well-known refuse for gays in his time.) I have no idea, and no way of finding out if he ever engaged in homosexual activity. I believe, from hearing him on the radio, and seeing the reaction of people of allkinds, that he was viewed by many as a savior. I remember walking the streets the night he died and seeing (through my tears) people crying bitter tears. This was a man who took us through the worst times that people had ever had. Even at 14, I could not deny that there was something in his voice and face that was more gripping than a father or a mother's love. I think, sometimes, that he was the first person outside my family that I ever loved. And he a man, and me a boy. Have you seen Rodin's sculptures up very close? In Philadelphia, or Palais Biron in Paris? That man dripped passion from every pore. His universal love for mankind is represented by some of the most dazzling worship of the human body -- male and female. Yes, he loved. Tolstoy? Very strong feminine side -- a flipping pacifist -- a lover of enemies, even. Chekov --- he could even love Uncle Vanya. Chamberlain, DeKooning, Picasso (I said great, not weird!) Its not an odd assertion, it's more a queer assertion. I agree with your pawky view that Nature doesn't really have needs. But we people have needs for Nature -- or Physical Existence. Chances are we matter not at all, being a small planet around a third rate star in a mediocre galaxy (please, please don't attack me for criticizing the greatness of the Milky Way). If we start running now some of our descendents can escape to the outer limits of the Orion arm in a few thousand years, so that the explosion boiling up from the Galaxy's core will have a few hundred thousand years before its blows our descendants (and our genes) all to hell. We do not need to think aboout the next move now. But we need to get packed and prepare some escape vehicles. Sorry we can't take everybody. But there is really no need as long as we pack a bunch of all our genes and remember how to sramble them. Chances are we won't escape at all. There is no chance that we will if we don't start very soon. The argument from design suggests we are alone. We have to accept this alternative until we actually see tracks of a space hound or bee or ant. It is barely possible that when we are snuffed out that the universe, dying, dumb, unthinking will slowly crumble unobserved for quads of years. But if our descendents can jump, and fly, and soar, learning at every leap, we may record the whole gigantic history of everything. Quite a treat, I'd say. Although I will not have time to read it.