Reason as the Leading Motive

Archive for the ‘Love and Romance’ Category

Homosexuality is Unnatural

Posted by Jerry on February 27, 2012

A case of deep-rooted fear and self-loathing

The idea that homosexuality is unnatural is held widely not just among the religiously tainted but also by those who support the rights of LGBT persons.

Perhaps this is because the experience of same-sex attraction is so incredibly difficult to imagine for heterosexuals that they prefer to let it remain unexamined. After all, putting yourself in another person’s shoes to empathize with their subjective experiences is a difficult process in itself—and in the case of homosexuality, this may demand a visceral experience that can be quite unsettling.

Hence, even those who have gay friends and are in support of recognizing the full rights of LGBT individuals hold a deep-seated belief that homosexuality is not “natural” and “not how things were meant to be.”

Given this, the most common defense of homosexuality then boils down to a matter of choice—the right to have a personal preference in romance, even though it might violate “natural” norms.

This is the premise that needs to be challenged and discarded.

Homosexuality is not a matter of choice. It is not a preference. It is completely natural. Indeed, it can also be an expression of the grandly spiritual.

The Factual Explanation

But let’s begin from a purely probabilistic calculation: in a population of over seven billion human beings on Earth, it is a lack of imagination to insist that all the billions of people will manifest only one kind of sexual behaviour in nature, namely, the heterosexual behaviour. Just by the pure mathematics of it, the amount of potential combinations and permutations possible to the human species in the kinds of sexual, psychological, emotional, and physical manifestations are limitless.

Homosexuality is merely one naturally occurring variant in the great spectrum of human psycho-sexual possibilities. This variety is the natural order of things. Diversity in every aspect of nature is the motive power that drives procreation and evolution.

However, the religiously tainted claim that homosexuality is an aberration only observed in humans. Again, this is an ignorance of the available evidence. There is ample amount of documented evidence of homosexual and bisexual behavior in various non-human species. A quick search on Wikipedia reveals that same-sex behavior is a nearly universal phenomenon in the animal kingdom, common across species.

What’s more, the human species itself has documented evidence of homosexual and bi-sexual behaviour since its earliest history, agnostic to cultures and geographies.

The Moral Case for Homosexuality

But beyond these existential facts about homosexuality lie the more important question: Is homosexuality an immoral indulgence? Does it degrade the dignity of human nature?

You will see at the end of this article that the answer is a resounding “No!”

The religiously tainted have dominated the moral conversation, and it is time we exposed the root of their arguments. At the root of their moral assertions lie a fear of confronting their own self-loathing, cowardice, and un-reason.

The religiously tainted argue that just because homosexuality is observed in the animal kingdom, it does not mean that humans should emulate the same and “become like animals!” We have a moral compass, they chide us. We can and must choose to be better than mere animals.

Notice carefully, however, that there is no reason given beyond a bald moral assertion that human sexual pleasure is degrading. There is an implicit admission of shame and guilt associated with human sexual desire, as if prima facie it is wrong and therefore must be suppressed at all costs.

This debased projection of the human capacity to experience desire, joy, and ecstasy as the cause of shame and guilt is the filthy consequence of a mind—and a culture—obsessed with the mechanics of sex, not the experience of sex.

But even keeping that aside, what is more specious is the view that homosexuality is the consequence of a mindless, perverse pursuit of the sexual stimulus. Apparently, according to the religiously tainted, nature has arranged the sexual organs of male and females to “fit” in a particular manner that facilitates procreation. Since this is the only natural way to procreate, it therefore must be the only moral way to have sex.

Like almost everything that the religiously tainted claim, this is yet another illogical and specious jump from a physical phenomenon to a moral conclusion. If the act of sex is justified purely because of the resultant ability to procreate, then by that logic all manner of non-procreative sexual activity will need to be immoral. That would include everything from healthy behaviors like masturbation to every act of sex even among married heterosexual couples that does not lead to child-bearing.

Further, if the capacity to procreate is what decides the morality of a sex act, then heterosexual couples cannot morally indulge in a host of intimate, loving, and celebratory activities like foreplay, cunnilingus, and fellatio. Finally, the act of wagging a finger on the private, bedroom activities of heterosexual lovers simply because they do not intend to have children is itself a highly egregious moral offense that cannot be explained away.

Are We Humans or Sex Organs?

But there are some very important questions that confront the religiously tainted, if they choose to honestly grapple with this topic:

Is it really dignified to interpret the complexities of our sexual desires as little more than the arrangement of organs that “fit” together in our bodies—like pipes in the bathroom plumbing system? Is it possible to explain all of human desires—those heights of emotional and sexual experience that motivate marvels of art and architecture—as products of only titillated sexual organs? Can the entirety of the human sexual experience be reduced to the activity of our sex organs?

The religiously tainted say yes, because it is their view of human sexuality that sees nothing spiritual, nothing transcendent, nothing holy, nothing reverent in sex. They are the ones who truly describe the human sexual experience as that of mere meat groping in the dark to find the right fit.

In contrast, humans are the only species in nature with the power to recast our entire existential being into a sexual organ. We are the only species that can transform our whole bodies and our minds into the service of sexual exploration and ecstasy. Indeed, we have the power to reach dizzying heights of emotional and psychological experience without even any physical contact.

This is proper to the fullest nature of human beings. This is when humans rise to all that is possible to its own nature.

Those who call this human potential “unnatural” and “against the order of nature” are actually not ignorant of what it means to be human; they are afraid of it. It is fear of the realization that they lack self-esteem and that they loathe their own bodies that drives their hatred for all that is possible to us as a species.

Implicitly, they realize that it is this fear which allows them to hide comfortably behind the dark pronouncements of their religions and traditions.


The only hurdle facing humanity in accepting homosexuality or any other diverse forms of human pleasure as legitimate forms of human psycho-sexual experience is the primitive Judeo-Christian morality that has pervaded our civilizations for more than 2000 years, infecting even non-Judeo-Christian cultures now.

This morality is frought with the guilt and shame of sex–any sex, not just homosexual sex–and hence, it attempts to minimize the possibilities and wide range of sexual indulgences possible to humans. The ideal at the end of the road, of course, is the complete and total eradication of the sexual experience–as perfected by their moral personification, Jesus Christ, and as attempted for centuries by the celibate clergy of the Catholic Church.


Related quote
“Observe the false dichotomy offered: man’s choice is either mindless, “instinctual” copulation – or marriage, an institution presented not as a union of passionate love, but as a relationship of “chaste intimacy”, of “special personal friendship”, of “discipline proper to purity”, of unselfish duty, of alternating bouts with frustration and pregnancy, and of such unspeakable, Grade-B-movie-folks-next-door kind of boredom that any semi-living man would have to run, in self-preservation, to the nearest whorehouse.”

Ayn Rand
On Living Death, a speech discussing the 1968 papal encyclical Humanae Vitae.

Posted in Culture, General Work/Life, Homosexuality, Love and Romance, Personal, Philosophy, Political Issues, Rights and Morality, The Best of Leitmotif | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments »

Discussing Sexuality on CNN IBN

Posted by Jerry on November 2, 2009

Watch me and my friends discussing sexual minorities on CNN IBN.

Posted in Culture, Homosexuality, India, Love and Romance, Mumbai, My Friends, Personal, Rights and Morality, The Best of Leitmotif, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments »

Bisexuality and Commitment

Posted by Jerry on January 27, 2009

In brief, my thoughts on bisexuals and their capacity to have committed, romantic relationships with a single partner.

The incomprehensibility surrounding a person’s bisexuality has mostly to do with the fact that people impute more layers of complexity to the matter than is actually warranted.

Bisexuality is just like any other sexual identity. Merely because a bisexual has the possibility of forging deep and romantic relationships with both sexes (or the possibility of being physically intimate with both sexes) does not mean that he is inexorably led to do so at every juncture! Neither does it mean that he will more quickly tire of his current partner and seek someone of the other sex than his heterosexual and homosexual counterparts would!

A bisexual may well choose a partner of either sex and live in a committed, long-term relationship. The bond that keeps two people together in a lasting relationship is not sexual orientation (that’s more like a precondition), but love–and all the necessary elements that lead to the summary emotion of love.

And are we to deny that bisexuals have the same capacity to experience true love–for whichever gender that may be?

Posted in Culture, General Work/Life, Homosexuality, Love and Romance, My Theories and Ideas, Objectivism, Personal, Philosophy, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | 8 Comments »

We Evolve into Preferring Monogamy

Posted by Jerry on November 20, 2008

People generally can’t quite decide whether monogamy is natural–or even possible–for humans (men, for the most part, I think, tend to pose this doubt). There’s usually debate about the morality of monogamy or multiple partners. Some people believe that monogamy is properly moral, but we are weak-willed humans and therefore cannot live up to the ideal in our relationships.

Others argue that monogamy is unnatural–and offer biologically deterministic arguments in their defense.

I have always held the view that monogamy is neither inherently moral or immoral — a relationship’s morality is the function of the character, values, and virtues of the people involved.

Having said that, I also hold the view that monogamy is a more prudent setup–and that we consciously come to recognize it as such usually only much later in our lives–for reasons that have nothing to do with a person’s character but because of the natural context that evolves around us.

Take this analogy:

When one is younger, one is tempted–and rightly so, I would argue–to try out different majors in college, simultaneously take different courses from different streams, trying to make up one’s mind about what one prefers. Likewise, when it comes to choosing a career, a young person is eager to try different streams; he is likely to switch jobs more frequently, hunt for jobs while staying on his current one for less than a year. A younger person is more open to physical mobility–to relocation, travel, new experiences, and new friends. A younger person has a higher tolerance for transformation, upheavals, and new starts.

As one gets older, the context evolves. People tend to get settled in their careers; their tenure at a job tends to get longer–perhaps even life-long. People tend to decide upon and setup a “base” which they call home, even if they are open to long trips away. People tend to make fewer, but longer-lasting friendships. As one gets older, the tolerance for transformation, upheavals, and new beginnings diminish greatly.

Hence, my argument around the choice of monogamy–and by implication, my views about its morality–takes a similar road. I think it’s primarily a matter of prudence in response to changing contexts.

It is clear that monogamy does not come easily to most people–and certainly not naturally–in the younger days of one’s adulthood. This is due to various reasons that make up the context within which this issue arises. And in my opinion, the reasons are as follows:

  1. For various physical and biological reasons that may differ among men and women, younger people tend to have a greater sexual appetite–not just in terms of frequency but also in terms of variety. (Of course, this does not mean that such “appetites” cannot be controlled or channeled, but that’s not the point here.)
  2. For various psychological reasons, younger people tend to be more resilient to break-ups. Even though while they undergoing one, they might think that a break-up is the end of the world, younger people become quickly aware of the fact that a whole life is ahead of them and that they can move on, that they deserve better, or that they can find another mate.
  3. For reasons similar to the one above, the pressures of maintaining fidelity and abiding by the rules of a relationship tend to be weak among younger people–again, because the end of a relationship is really not the end of the world.
  4. Younger people generally have access to–or are frequently placed in–social environments that open possibilities for exploring outside the relationship (e.g., clubs, colleges, etc.). Moreover, the modern world has opened up innumerable possibilities for younger people to connect with each other–across boundaries, even. (This opens up the tangential issue of whether a person having a purely online affair can be considered to be monogamous.)
  5. Younger people generally have a lower level of tolerance when things don’t go their way in a relationship or when they experience dissatisfaction in an aspect in that relationship.

For the reasons I outlined above, I think monogamy is harder to come by and equally harder to impose upon oneself when you’re young.

As people grow older, however, I think we generally shift our predispositions quite naturally to prefer monogamy–to prefer a kind of stability in romantic relationships. 

It becomes more prudent–more sensible and in accordance with our nature as older adults–that we focus all our emotions, efforts, time, and money on a single partner (and expect likewise in reverse) because this is what lends us the most amount of physical, psychological, sexual, and emotional satisfaction.

To conclude, monogamy or open relationships are neither inherently moral or immoral. However, having said that, I believe that most people will tend towards monogamous relationships later in their lives of their own will as a consciously recognized and evaluated option that is most sensible for them–and hence, properly moral as well. Since what is rationally good for you with your life as the standard, is also properly moral.

Posted in Culture, General Work/Life, Homosexuality, India, Love and Romance, Mumbai, My Theories and Ideas, Philosophy, Rights and Morality, The Best of Leitmotif, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 10 Comments »

On Romantic Affairs and Sexual Experience

Posted by Jerry on March 24, 2008

I know of some Objectivists whose moral views on sexuality, romantic love, and virginity have a remarkable resemblance to the views of the Catholic Church on these issues (I am deliberately choosing to not provide links to substantiate my claim). Of course, being an Objectivist does not make you immune to errors of judgment; neither does it mean that an Objectivist would accept anything merely because Ayn Rand said so.

Here is what Ayn Rand had to say on these issues in her Q&A session titled “Of Living Death”:

On the question, “If romantic love includes more than one person, what does this do to the institution of monogamy?”

Ayn Rand: To begin with, if you want to ask it in principle, I’m fine. It is not only permissible, it is virtuous and moral. I have never said that marriage is the only proper form of romantic love. There is nothing wrong with a romantic affair, if there are reasons why a couple cannot be married or if they are too young to marry; and that is not promiscuity, provided it is a serious feeling based on serious values.

Now, as to more than one love, now remember men have free will. It is the Catholic Church that advocates indissoluble marriage. I don’t. And a reason one cannot is because man is not omniscient. He can make a mistake in his choice of partner or the partner may change through the years and therefore a man may fall out of love, or as so can a woman, if the partner he or she has chosen no longer lives up to the proper values. In Atlas Shrugged, … [Hank]… was romantically in love with [Lillian] at first because he thought she was a certain type of woman and she deliberately faked the kind of image she thought he would want and he got disappointed. Now, he was very wrong in carrying out a secret affair with Dagny, but what was wrong with it was not sex, but secrecy—the lie.

An open relationship with as many men as you can meet if you are unlucky—but not several at a time—is appropriate, except that of course, one cannot be as unlucky that often, one would have to then check one’s standard if one makes constant mistakes. But as a principle of romantic love, one cannot say that only a single life-long romance can appropriately be called romantic. That is the ideal. If a couple achieves that, they are extremely lucky and they must have extremely good premises, but one can’t make that the norm. Sometimes it is an exclusive single love for all time; sometimes not. The issue to judge here—the moral principle—is the seriousness of their feeling and one gauges that by what kind of values is it based on. What is it that the person is attracted to in a man or a woman, and why. That is the standard of romantic love.


I have transcribed Rand’s speech verbatim; you can hear the entire Q&A session for yourself by going to the Web site of the Ayn Rand Institute, create an account (if you don’t already have one), and then go to their library of free multi-media resources.

I have edited Rand’s references to events in Atlas Shrugged in order to not have spoilers, because my friend who reads this blog is currently reading the novel. Please keep this in mind when you choose to comment.

Posted in Ayn Rand, General Work/Life, Love and Romance, Objectivism, Philosophy, Rights and Morality, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments »

Bating On the Way to Heaven

Posted by Jerry on November 28, 2007

Ha! This is for real. The following question appeared in this morning’s sex column of Mumbai Mirror–an English-language regional daily. I can’t decide which is more funny–the 20-year-old man who just discovered some new activity and his intended pathway to heaven, or the sex columnist’s response!

I’m a 20 year old man. I learnt “master bating” from my friends and now I cannot stay without it. I don’t have any bad habits like smoking and drinking. I have also lost weight because of this habit. I know many prostitutes who can show me the path to heaven but I don’t have the guts to deal with them. Please help.

Respose: You are not playing cricket; it is “masturbation” that you are doing. There is nothing to worry about. You will learn better control and masturbate only when you have something to excite you. No harm will come to you. Prostitutes or any unknown female will not send you to heaven — there are more chances of going to hell. Lead a healthy lifestyle.

[P.S. In the sport of cricket, a team bats while the other bowls–much like in baseball. Hence, the term “batting”, and a misspelled version of it: “bating.”]

Posted in Culture, General Work/Life, India, Love and Romance, Mumbai, Personal, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 7 Comments »

Those Worms Are So Gay!

Posted by Jerry on October 30, 2007

Is this news? Scientists have found evidence that same-sex attraction is genetically wired in the brain… of a worm.

University of Utah biologists genetically manipulated nematode worms so the animals were attracted to worms of the same sex — part of a study that shows sexual orientation is wired in the creatures’ brains.

Thankfully, the scientists have admitted the role of free will as a “complicating factor” in the roots of sexual attraction among humans.

“We cannot say what this means for human sexual orientation, but it raises the possibility that sexual preference is wired in the brain,” Jorgensen says. “Humans are subject to evolutionary forces just like worms. It seems possible that if sexual orientation is genetically wired in worms, it would be in people too. Humans have free will, so the picture is more complicated in people.”

You can find my views on homosexuality in my posts under the category of the same name.

[ht: The Daily Dish]

Posted in Culture, General Work/Life, Homosexuality, Love and Romance, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Thoughts This Morning

Posted by Jerry on October 18, 2007

I have met this person twice now. And I continue to be impressed, although with some warranted restraint. He has an upper-level position in a large US pharmaceutical company, is mature, intelligent in his sphere, and attractive. Last night he said, “I like you; so I want to go out of my way to meet you again. This is because I’m selfish.”

I’m optimistic about where this is headed.

[P.S. I sent this person a link to my article on Atlasphere, and over the phone, I said, “This is a link to what we were talking about last night. Check it out any time.” He responded, “Why at any time? I’ll check it out right now!”

He just says the right things, doesn’t he!]


On my way to work this morning in the autorickshaw, I decided that I need to calm my mind and just relax. You know how even after you’ve slept, you feel that only your body has relaxed but your mind is still tense or active or busy? So, on the entire trip to work, I just closed my eyes, plugged my ears with my headphones, and focused on the melodious music from my iPod. These days, I almost exclusively listen to Hindi/Bollywood music: the songs are so melodious, with a coherent rhythmic pace, and the lyrics are essentially poetry–very emotional, romantic, metaphorical, and imaginative. It was a good, calming, relaxing trip to work.


Posted in General Work/Life, India, Love and Romance, Movies, Mumbai, Personal, Uncategorized | 7 Comments »

Being Gay in India

Posted by Jerry on August 31, 2007

Having lived in India now as an openly gay man for more than a year, I have some interesting observations to report:

Most gay men I meet like to say that they are–”not gay. I’m bi.”

[uh-huh, sure honey.] “Have you ever had sex with a girl?”


“With a guy?”



There is a fairly dominant belief among Indian gay men that one is not born gay but is initiated into “gayhood.” I am amazed by how often my conversations with the gay men I meet in person or online go somewhat along these lines:

“So, how long have you been in this line?”

“What line?”

“This! Gay line!”

“Oh, you mean how long have I been gay?”

“Yea yea.”

“Since I was born.” — This answer noticeably disappoints them. So, I continue: 

“Since as far back as I can remember, I remember having an intense attraction to another boy in my second grade class, so much so that I remember writing down in the last page of my notebook “I love you, [name].”

“Oh my, so early! How is that possible? I just become gay [one/two/three] years ago!”

“Maybe you became fully aware that you are gay only just a few years ago. Perhaps, you may have had that implicit attraction for the same sex all your life; you may have always found boys attractive but never thought much of it.”

“No. I was always attracted to girls. I still like girls.”

“Oh, so you’re bi?”

— and then the conversation goes back to how I described it above.

Most of the gay men I meet here are amazingly adept at hiding their gayness (or, most straight Indian men are incredibly androgynous). One would be hard pressed to identify a gay man in a crowd of men; and the fact that Indian men in general are rather fussy about their appearance, visit their salons for facials and manicures regularly, and dress in the most fashionably form-fitting clothes they can afford, makes the task of identifying gay men here that much harder. Therefore, I am often surprised when I meet a gay man here; often, the first thing that strikes me upon seeing one is “You’re gay!? I wouldn’t have guessed!”

Many gay men are married; and I do not ever care to meet them. The ones I do meet are not worth my time. They are psycho-sexually immature and largely non-introspective. Most of them are still in the closet and actively deny their sexuality by having and flaunting girlfriends.

Gay men in India have little to no resource to healthy ideas about gay sexuality, psychological maturity, and shrugging off feelings of guilt or moral depravity. Also, many of them holding strong religious tendencies does not help the matter.

Homosexuality is legally a crime in India, which creates further psychological, social, and existential barriers to coming out of the closet–indeed, it is positively life-threatening to be an openly gay man in India: the only most widely known gay-interest website in India keeps track of attacks and harassment of gay men by the Indian police and gang members who exploit the fear of being “outed” in the Indian society.

In general, gay men in India are often intellectually and emotionally immature, which often reflects in the kinds of relationships they enter into and endure. Relationships here are fickle, impetuous, and short-lived. Since talking about sexuality in general is still taboo, homosexual issues are rarely ever brought up in discussions–either in the privacy and security of one’s own home with one’s family or on the public debate shows on news channels. In other words, gay men in India are left to fend for themselves and have to learn the relevant psycho-sexual and physical issues on their own. Hence, beyond just the misinformation of all sorts that pervades the Indian gay community, few gay men have a healthy assessment of their own psycho-sexual and moral worth, which means their level of self-esteem is usually very harmfully low.

The constant monitoring of their personal behavior and the persistant filtering of their mannerisms until the point where it ceases to be conscious and becomes a habit indicate a distorted self-image; some grow up with an internalized malevolence towards the society that forces them to hide under a facade. This malevolence over time gets rationalized into a sense of justified sacrifice for the sake of sparing themselves, their wives, and their families the shame of coming out as being gay.

What does all this mean for me?

I have yet to encounter a gay man in India who can even mildly captivate my interest. The slightly more interesting and psychologically healthier ones are mostly expats who don’t intend to stay in this country for too long. Further, being that I am an Objectivist–which means that I hold strong, radical, and unyeildingly rational principles with an intense passion–and an atheist, the likelihood of me finding a partner who can be my intellectual companion as well as be worthy of being “my highest value and the object of my passionate worship” is most certainly non-existant.


I wanted to add:

Most gays in India adopt either one of the following ways of living–
1) Live in the closet all their lives, marry, have kids, and engage in discreet sexcapades with other men
2) Come out of the closet and caricature themselves along the most extreme of homosexual traits such that they come to be perceived as a social freak, which distracts society from the essence of their sexual identity and focuses attention on their jarring persona and loud behavior.

Both practices are attempts to ensure the safety of one’s life and dignity. Those adopting the second approach hope to create such a barrier of “foreigness” or freakishness about them that society will rather choose to ignore them entirely (through ostracism) than bother to be associated with them at all. The manner of protecting one’s dignity in the second approach is by donning on a whole new persona that is superficial and hence acts as a sheild to the true emotional core of such gay men, where their bruised sense of self-esteem is guardedly nursed.

Finally, the extreme freakishness of those adopting the second approach also affords society with a benign target of jokes and derision, thus allowing society to perceive no sense of threat to their morality or beliefs from the reality of homosexual men in India.

The ones who choose neither of the above paths are relatively very few.

[For a related post, see Dissecting the Gay Indian Male.]

Posted in Culture, General Work/Life, Homosexuality, India, Love and Romance, Mumbai, My Theories and Ideas, Personal, Philosophy, The Best of Leitmotif, Uncategorized | 62 Comments »

Do You Have a Gay Head?

Posted by Jerry on June 20, 2007

EXAMPLE A: Hair Whorl (Men)
Gay men are more likely than straight men to have a counterclockwise whorl.
Photographs by Mark Mahaney  

Do you have a gay head?? Do the size of the fingers on your hand betray your sexual identity??

An article explores some recent studies into the biological traits of gender and sexual identity, highlighting some strange and surprising correlations between one’s physiology and sexual orientation. Here are large chunks of excerpts from the article. The article is quite long, but a very interesting read that should not be missed! 

Statistically, for instance, gay men and lesbians have about a 50 percent greater chance of being left-handed or ambidextrous than straight men or women. The relative lengths of our fingers offer another hint: The index fingers of most straight men are shorter than their ring fingers, while for most women they are closer in length, or even reversed in ratio. But some researchers have noted that gay men are likely to have finger-length ratios more in line with those of straight women, and a study of self-described “butch” lesbians showed significantly masculinized ratios. The same goes for the way we hear, the way we process spatial reasoning, and even the ring of our voices. One study, involving tape-recordings of gay and straight men, found that 75 percent of gay men sounded gay to a general audience. It’s unclear what the listeners responded to, whether there is a recognized gay “accent” or vocal quality. 

It was already known that in (presumably straight) men, a cell cluster in the hypothalamus called INAH3 is more than twice the size of the cluster in (presumably straight) women, a distinction probably created during fetal development when male hormones begin acting on boy fetuses and the two genders embark on different biological courses. LeVay designed a study to see if there were any size differences inside gay brains. His results were startling and unexpected. In gay men, INAH3 is similar in size to straight women’s.

This finding challenged a lot of what scientists believed. “The brain was considered pretty hardwired,” says Roger Gorski, a neurobiologist at UCLA who researches sexual differentiation. “It was male or female, period. Then Simon’s study shows that there could be intermediates. That wasn’t just a watershed—it pushed the water over the waterfall.”

Sheep are among 500 animal species where homosexuality has been documented. They are also among the few who practice exclusive homosexuality, like many humans. In any population of sheep, about 8 percent of males show exclusive homosexual behavior. Little is known about the romantic life of Sapphic sheep because ewes tend to express their sexual interests by standing entirely still, yielding no clues about their partner preferences.

Slicing open the brains of ten ewes, eight female-oriented rams, and nine males who preferred other rams, researchers in the Oregon Health and Science University School of Medicine found nearly the same variations in hypothalamus that LeVay first noticed. Male sheep who were attracted to females had a significantly larger hypothalamus dimension than females or male-oriented males.

One of the riddles still vexing geneticists is why only 50 percent of gay identical twins share a sexual orientation with their sibling, despite being genetically identical. “We know from all sorts of research that it’s not your upbringing, not relationship with parents or siblings, not early-childhood sexual experiences and whether you go to a Catholic school or not,” says Sven Bocklandt, a geneticist at UCLA. “What I believe is that it is the ‘epigenetics environment,’ meaning the environment on top of our DNA—meaning the way that the gene is regulated. If you have identical twins, the genes are identical, but they are used differently. Every man and every woman has all the genes to make a vagina and womb and penis and testicles. In the same way, arguably, every man and woman has the genetic code for the brain networks that make you attracted to men and to women. You activate one or the other—and if you activate the wrong one, you’re gay.”

Of course, biology doesn’t determine everything. And some critics of sexual-orientation researchers blame them for minimizing the role of experience in determining our affectional course in life. The feminist biologist Anne Fausto-Sterling has waged a constant battle against their research, which she calls “a big house of cards” that ignores the power of environment in creating personality. Nurture, she argues, can and should be studied as a link to sexual orientation.

The rush to declare a biological mandate is motivated by a political agenda, says Fausto-Sterling, the author of Sexing the Body, who is married to a woman after a marriage to a man. “For me and for any feminist, I think it’s a pretty fragile way to argue for human rights. I want to see the claims for gay rights made on moral, ethical, legal, and constitutional bases that don’t rely on a particular scientific view of sexual development.”

My brief thoughts:

  • I’ve always held that most (all?) people possess the genetic predisposition to various sexualities, but only a few people actually trigger the ones different from the norm. This trigger is quite possibly the result of environmental and developmental influences.
  • I am not against parents genetically determining the sexuality of their children, if this ever becomes possible. Parents have that right, and governments need not interfere in this personal and familial matter. But I would highly discourage such a practice. A case can be made that the child’s right to be naturally who he is born to be is being violated by the parents interference. To that, I would like to point out that since sexuality is not wholly (or even largely) determined by genes alone, it is still quite possible for the child to develop a sexual identity that is different from or a combination of his existing genetic makeup–even though the likelihood of that happening may be very small. Thus, the child is not naturally born to be heterosexual or homosexual–only more likely to be so depending on its genetic makeup.
  • Finally, regardless of whether sexual identity is biological or not (and to whatever extent), the morality of sexual identity is not essentially dependent on its physiological origins. All men are born with the capacity to reason; but this fact does not make all men rational or moral.

Posted in General Work/Life, Homosexuality, Love and Romance, Personal, Uncategorized | 6 Comments »

Young Glider

Posted by Jerry on May 2, 2007

In his late teenage years, Edgar was among the first few teenpilots from Chicago, having won a scholarship from the Aviation Scholarship Foundation. Here is an old picture of him beside his airplane, featured on the Foundation’s website:

Edgar Airplane

Staying on the topic of Edgar, he was also a deeply emotional man with a very playful, creative, and vivid imagination. Posted on Luis’ poetry blog, I found a few short lines that Edgar had written in Spanish, which were translated into English by Luis. I particularly love the first one:


En el rincón que me ves
llorando– alli mi vida se esconde.

Quando ya no esté
mi rincón se convertira,
poco a poco,
en Tú rincón
de lagrimas.

:: English Translation ::

The corner in which I stand,
as you watch me crying– my life
is hidden there.

When I am gone, my corner will become,
bit by bit, your corner
of tears


Si me acompañas
Seras mi Tierra
Si me dejas
Sere tu Luna

:: English Translation ::

As my companion
You are my Earth
If we’re apart
I’ll be your Moon

Posted in General Work/Life, Love and Romance, Personal, Uncategorized | 5 Comments »

Public Moral Parks

Posted by Jerry on April 7, 2007

I did not know about this until I read the newspapers recently. Apparently, it is illegal for couples to kiss in public areas in Mumbai! In fact, the Indian moral police is so good at enforcing this dictat (while being completely inept at enforcing any legitimate laws) that PDA-starved couples are clamoring for parks and public spaces explicitly designated as “man-woman” parks, or “couples’ parks”; apparently, these designated zones will cater to the PDA needs of couples–in privacy.

Does anyone really need the absurdity of this entire situation to be highlighted?!

So, exactly who guards and monitors these public spaces to ensure that only couples (constituting, of course, only one male and one female) enter these spaces? Will they be distributing licenses to bona fide heterosexual couples? Also, what is the extent of PDA that will be permitted here, and who is going to monitor these behaviors? Could there be a possibility of an all-out public orgy?! Is someone going to make the rounds to ensure that couples keep at least some of their clothes on? (Sounds like a perfect job for a voyeur! India–the homeland of sleazy voyeurs and PDA-starved couples!)

It is absurd to discuss this matter at this superficial level. There are fundamental issues involved that hardly anyone seems to be addressing: issues about the cultural attitude towards sexuality–Indians have a positively sleazy conception of love, romantic expression, and sexuality; these attitudes need to be exposed, challenged, aggresively confronted and debunked. Indeed, the role of the police is to ensure that individual freedom of legitimate expressions (including romantic public expressions) should be protected in all public spaces at all times. And the matter of moral policing should be effectively and immediately banned from the sphere of government action–this is an illegitimate authority usurped by the government. The government has–and should have–no role in dictating the moral code of a culture. When you have the government dictating moral principles, what you essentially have is collectivized ethics based on the arbitrary whim of the prevailing majority or ruling class.

What the ban on kissing and the matter of designated parks for couples reveal to me is not an untarnished or unblemished purity of the Indian moral fabric but its utter filth and stinging stench that is blindly and desperately being guarded by the moral police and by the citizens of this country. 

Posted in General Work/Life, India, Love and Romance, Mumbai, Political Issues | 5 Comments »

Bits and Bytes of Me

Posted by Jerry on March 13, 2007

I happened to come across this very old profile of mine–a self-descriptive essay–that I had put up many many years ago on a personals site; this must have been posted about 4-5 years ago. Today, as I read it, I realized that I hadn’t really changed much–if at all. The essence of what I had written then, still applies to me today, to the kind of person I am. But, then again, I’ll leave it to those of you who know me well and know me personally to “fill in the gaps” or correct the record. Please feel free to comment prodigiously!

Who a person is usually leaks out of them in the quietest of ways. I am well aware of that in myself… and I think I am quite perceptive of those things in others. Usually, I’m happy with what I have. I am content but I never give up my ambitions. I dream big but am also pragmatic. I look for simplicity in life, in people, and in myself. I detest contrivances. Pretentious people turn me off. Euphemistic criticisms are as worthless as lies. And so I prefer being simple, honest, and real. I have an interest in psychology, the mind and stuff like that… Philosophy is always my passion. Some of my best moments are when I am thinking about something critically. I am not a capricious person… though I love spontaneity and change. I believe they are different things, the latter is what gives life its texture.
I like flying, someday I’d like to learn how to fly an airplane. Describe me in a few words:- thinker, lover, honest, caring, simple, fun, real, sentimentalist.
About the one I’m looking for: mature, intelligent, and very open-minded… responsible… fun… honest and real… simple people who are well aware of who they are. Pretentious personalities are best for the mannequins on storefront windows. I do not want them in my life.
When I love someone, I go all the way. I love them to the fullest extent… My idea of love is not merely a relationship to get in and out of. For me, the object of my love becomes love itself – personified. Thus, what is love? Love is this man holding my hand, standing next to me. Overall, I’m someone who believes that this life is exciting and worth living.. I find this world as having so much beauty yet to be discovered and realized… I like being.. and I am looking for someone to be with… to love together, and be together.

Dancing, Live music/Music, Movies/Film, Nightclubs/Parties, Symphony/Opera, T.V./Videos/DVDs, Theater arts

I find ways of entertaining myself… if I’m looking for some passive amusement, I just turn on the TV.. I do love watching movies… my favorites are: The Hours, Frida, A Home at the End of the World, Good Will Hunting, The Trip, Memento, Days, Bad Education, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Kinsey, Real, Motorcycle Diaries, Gattaca, American History X, Far From Heaven, Amadeus, The Sixth Sense, The Matrix movies, Elephant, House of Sand and Fog, Talented Mr. Ripley…

I like to cook when I get some time. Cooking is like creating a work of art that you eventually devour. It’s also cathartic (and filling). Food should have both texture as well as flavor.

Posted in General Work/Life, Love and Romance, Personal | Leave a Comment »

Emotional Responses to Sex

Posted by Jerry on February 27, 2007

The object of one’s love is the embodiment of one’s values; love is the reward one attains for one’s virtues. When one’s subconscious premises are congruent with one’s conscious philosophy, the result is a state of harmony between the emotional and intellectual. The emotional response of love is one’s own subconscious appraisal of the code of values held consciously by the object of one’s love. Since one can only have access to the conscious contents of another person and not to their subconscious thoughts, one can only assess the code of values held consciously by the other person. However, the nature of this assessment–whether we assess it favorably (with pleasure) or unfavorably (with disapproval)–depends on our emotional responses stemming from our subconscious contents.

According to Rand, sex is the highest expression of love and the greatest tribute–of one’s own physical existence–that one can offer to another within the context of romantic love. Sex is the affirmation of one’s body and spirit–the union of bodies motivated by and in response to the intimate connection of minds, and one’s mind is identical to one’s self.

Sex is man’s way of molding the very actuality of his body into a conduit for the transmission of love; indeed, man uses his own body as a concrete referent of love and views his lover as the personification of this abstract emotion.

However, there is no logical derivation from the above to the claim that sex outside the context of love and with a person whom one does not despise, is degrading, slavish, and immoral. For example, from the proposition that Edgar is the most beautiful man on Earth, one cannot logically and legitimately derive the proposition that all other men are ugly, dirty, or repulsive. Similarly, the true proposition that sex is the best and highest expression of love and acquires the greatest spiritual significance with the union of lovers does not render logical support to the claim that sex in contexts otherwise are degrading or immoral.

Indeed, while Ayn Rand vehemently denounced the divorcing of sex from love or love from sex (which to her exemplified on the most intimate level the severance of the mind from one’s body), she also constructed a philosophical system that rejected any notion or principle that was accepted as an intrinsic or dogmatic truth.

Thus, Rand describes sex as “an overpowering necessity” akin to one’s need for food. She argues that one cannot be described as a “slave of sex” merely “because he needs it so strongly”. Given that logic, man should also be described more appropriately as a slave of food, because the need for food is stronger and more pertinent; however, as she rightly points out, “nobody thinks of himself as a slave to food. We simply take it for granted that we need it–and we are in complete control of the means by which we get it.”

So, Rand goes on to say, the fact of sex as a need is similar in this fashion, although man’s means of satisfying this need are not quite as simple as in the matter of food (here, she intends to allude to the issue of another human being involved in the matter of sex, which makes the matter of sex more complicated than the matter of acquiring food).

“But still,” Rand says, “[man] is in control of them [i.e., the means of satisfying the need for sex].” She says that if man does not find the right woman to be his wife, “he would learn that he can find a second-best substitute… an attractive mistress. It would not be sex at its best and highest–not the perfect union of the spiritual and the physical–but it would not be terrifying or degrading or enslaving. That typically adolescent feeling [the feeling of being terrified, degraded, or enslaved] comes, I think, only from physical impatience–a strong physical desire that drives the man to women he despises, for lack of anything better, while his mind naturally objects. Why should his mind object if he found a woman he did not despise?”

To that last question, I would add: why should man’s mind object if he found a partner he did not love?

If the emotions of terror, fear, self-loathing, and degradation are the responses to such a situation, then either one is engaging in sex with a person one already despises or one’s subconscious contents are incongruent with one’s consciously held philosophy; that is, the person subconsciously desires to have sex but is wracked with the guilt of giving in to his “base” impulses due to the consciously and (dogmatically) held principle that sex should never occur outside of love.

[Note: Other posts related to this topic are in the category of Love and Romance; the post titled Rand on Love and Sex includes extensive discussions on the matter.]

Posted in Ayn Rand, General Work/Life, Love and Romance, Objectivism, Philosophy, The Best of Leitmotif | 5 Comments »


Posted by Jerry on January 11, 2007

“You cannot achieve anything just by demanding it–neither self-esteem nor a lover. Both have to be earned.”

“You can only demand that which you should deserve. Demanding the best in life is a demand that you make upon yourself. Fulfilling that demand is, in fact, the process of living.” — Pasha, Ergo Sum

Posted in Favorite Quotes, General Work/Life, Love and Romance, My Theories and Ideas, Pasha - A Vignette, Rights and Morality | 1 Comment »

Rand on Love and Sex

Posted by Jerry on December 16, 2006

“Only the man who extols the purity of a love devoid of desire is capable of the depravity of a desire devoid of love.”

“The subjectivist severs concepts from percepts and holds that sex is a mere sensory reaction, devoid of all intellectual cause.
… he tells men to go ahead and revel in it, to grab whatever animalistic sensations they want without reference to any principles or standards. In this theory, love is an abstract myth with no necessity of real manifestation, and sex is merely a wriggling of meat.

… Man’s spirit gives meaning to insentient matter by molding it to serve one’s chosen goals. This course of action leads one to the moment when in answer to the highest of one’s values, in an admiration not to be expressed by any other form of tribute, one’s spirit makes one’s body become the tribute, recasting it – as proof, as sanction, as reward – into a single sensation of such intensity of joy that no other sanction of one’s existence is necessary.”

— Ayn Rand

[I had originally posted this a long time ago. I stumbled upon this as I was going through my old posts to re-categorize them.

I am inclined to believe that in any romantic relationship, having sex is of utmost importance (provided it’s possible) because it is the physical manifestation, concretization, and expression of the abstract emotion of love. In that sense, it is similar to Rand’s theory of Art. In this matter, I am eagerly seeking thoughts, comments, opinions, analyses, criticisms, expositions, explications, etc. Feel free.]

UPDATE : Recently, I came upon an article written by Don Watkins, a writer for the Ayn Rand Institute and a blogger at Noodlefood, titled “The Unselfish Objectivist: How Intrinsicism Undercuts Values.” His article is very relevant to this post because it precisely identifies the intrinsic root in considering sex outside of romantic love as de facto immoral.

A proper integration of Objectivism reveals that a rational and selfish valuation of anything or any person is preconditioned upon reason, choice, and alternatives. It is intrinsic to argue that sex with someone you do not love is flatly wrong, on principle. Because such a principle in untenable within the context and premise of agent-specific valuation.

Don points out that an intrinsic position undercuts the meaning of valuation and “deadens his values.” In particular, Don states:

“[When Objectivist intrinsicists] claim that sex with anyone who isn’t your ideal is wrong, they treat sex as a Platonic abstraction that man must serve, they treat sex as a test of their virtue, they… well, to put it simply, they treat sex in the most disgustingly un-sexual way imaginable.”

It is clear from the above that many Objectivists–some of them innocently–hold irrational and intrinsicist views that are in fact incompatible with Ayn Rand’s philosophy despite (and perhaps, because of) adhering to her exact words. They take her words as a religionist would accept revelation from God–without thought, analysis, integration, and if necessary, criticism; in short, without asking “why?”

To be sure, however, Don Watkins agrees with every word that Ayn Rand said about sex, love, and relationships. Indeed, I agree with everything I quoted from Rand above too, and upon careful reading, one can notice that nothing she says logically precludes enjoying sex with someone you do not love.

LATEST UPDATE: I have written a new post addressing the crucial matters of this topic in Emotional Responses to Sex.

Edit (June 26, 2007): Many have misconstrued my posts on Objectivist’s view of sex and love as permitting immoral, hedonistic promiscuity in sex. Since this is not a legitimate implication of my posts nor of Objectivism’s position on sex, I state unequivocally that sex and love should never be considered separate as one’s ideological or metaphysical position. However, relevant and particular cases of individuals may require that one engages in sex with someone who is not one’s lover or ideal partner. Objectivism does not advocate celibacy or life-long renunciation of sex unless one finds a lover. A rational man is permitted to explore his sexual options if his circumstances have not permitted him to find an ideal romantic partner.

Posted in Ayn Rand, General Work/Life, Love and Romance, Objectivism, Philosophy | 28 Comments »


Posted by Jerry on December 12, 2006

Toward the Sun

Gawd, I almost cry everytime I listen to James Blunt’s Goodbye My Lover.

I have never spoken of these things before–not on my blog at least. What makes me bring them up now, I’m not sure. Perhaps, the sense of finality is dawning on me, that my life has irreversibly moved on–and so have the lives of those who were once part of mine.

What hurts me the most–and it hurts to the core everytime I am reminded of it–is the utter absence not only of my lover next to me but also of the common world that we once shared between us. I cannot even visit the same restaurant we so loved to frequent and order a Thai iced tea and summon his thoughts as I sip alone in silence.

Even the bitter solace of seeking those places in heavy solitude is robbed from me. Even that moonlight is denied me–by the planetarium where we had sat late into the night. All I have are thoughts–memories–ghosts. I do not even have the physical reminders of a love once cherished–not the sunset under which we buried our tired spirits after a long day’s work, nor the sunrise that we so eagerly awaited after an all-night out; not the expansive view out the third-floor balcony on which we stood silently in each other’s arms, nor the flitting images outside our car window as we went on our many roadtrips.

I can’t even walk the streets you walk, or pass by your house and hope to catch a glimpse of you.

Indeed, I long to simply see “Hawaiian Waffles” on a restaurant menu again, or a Banana split sundae. But no, nothing. Absolutely nothing around me relents. And that is what hurts the most. I am not afraid that I might forget you. I am afraid that, under this unrelenting environment that demands that I leave my memories behind, I might never leave your soul.

*The picture above is not of James Blunt or from any of his albums. It’s a picture I took of the one who is the subject of this post.

Posted in General Work/Life, India, Left Behind Series, Love and Romance, Personal, The Best of Leitmotif | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments »

Marriage and Divorce

Posted by Jerry on December 3, 2006

I hear people often criticize the very high rates of divorce in the west–particularly, in the United States–as being an example of all that’s wrong with the culture; they claim, it reveals the lack of familial bonds, the superficiality of love and emotions, the selfish me-centricism, and just the general decadence of the culture.

However, when I see the alarmingly low rates of divorce in other cultures–where divorce is a societal taboo, such as in Japan, India, and China–I see the rampant disregard for individual human rights (especially in the case of women), I see individuals choking under societal and familial pressure to remain in suffocating relationships, I see individuals racked with emotional guilt for having extra-marital affairs in the dark, for entering and remaining in marriages despite being gay, I see children growing up with psychological scars from seeing their parents quarrel and fight before their own eyes, I see teenagers rebelling against their parents and running away with their lovers or friends to escape the nightmare of their homes occupied with two individuals who hate each other, I see youth engaging in frivolous sex and self-destructive relationships unconsciously mimicking the failed and forced relationships their parents had, I see women being raped by their husbands, men being forced into alcoholism and escapist hedonism, I see a political society that gets increasingly moralistic and paternal because it believes that morality must be forced upon people and that people are inherently evil, unruly, or savages.

Japan has the highest rates of suicide in the world. India has the highest number of people with AIDS in the world.

Divorce is good; in fact, it is an almost reliable indicator of a healthy and prosperous culture that respects individual rights and allows individuals the space and freedom to BREATHE!

Show me a culture with high divorce rates and I will show you a culture that’s prosperous, healthy, and free.

Posted in General Work/Life, India, Love and Romance, My Theories and Ideas, Personal, The Best of Leitmotif | 15 Comments »

Art of Writing Fiction

Posted by Jerry on November 9, 2006

I am in the midst of reading Ayn Rand’s The Art of Fiction. One of the countless amazing insights that Rand offers in this treasure-chest of a book is the approach to writing not as one thinks but as one sees. In other words, Rand says she does not present the reader with thoughts in her mind but concrete and sensory facts to be perceived or visualized directly. Of course, some may find this merely a rewording of the adage “show, don’t tell.” However, note how Rand elaborates on why should a good writer not tell but show. She bases it consistently and logically on her philosophical committment to reality, the nature of perception, and the experience of concretes, thereby applying the principles of her own philosophy to her artistic approach:

Rand explains:

I always reproduce human awareness as it is experienced in reality, assuming a certain kind of character. I make human epistemology my guide–in the selection of content and words. I present the material as a human mind would perceive it in reality. All perception is selective. We are not cameras; in any given situation, no one sees everything. We see that which interests us, that which our values require us to focus on. When I write, I substitute my selectivity for the reader’s; I present those highlights I want him to observe and leave him no room to focus on anything else. His awareness will then follow as if the material were actual reality. But he will be observing reality as I observe it–i.e., from my viewpoint, according to my value choice.

What this means in practice is, Rand’s razor sharp selectivity slices away mundane, meaningless, accidental, and extraneous materials that add nothing to the substance of what’s being said. She writes as one would experience a reality under a certain character. For example, Rand never wrote anything like “I’m madly in love,” or “Love is an important value” in her fictional works. Observe how Rand projects the intense emotion of Dagny’s love for John Galt:

“She kept seeing his figure in her mind–his figure as he had stood at the door of the structure–she felt nothing else, no wish, no hope, no estimate of her feeling, no name for it, no relation to herself–there was no entity such as herself, she was not a person, only a function, the function of seeing him.” To have said that she wanted to sleep with him, or that she realized she loved him, would have been weaker than saying that she is reduced to nothing but seeing his figure in her mind [Note Rand’s extreme selectivity of the particular sensory experience of reality–that of seeing someone]. Such conclusions as “I am in love with him” or “I want to marry him” are abstractions. They are thoughts, and would come later. The actual emotion would be experienced precisely as an extreme awareness of the other person, which is the essence of falling in love.

The conclusion conveys just that: “and the sight was its own meaning and purpose, with no further end to reach.” This is the extreme state of being in love, where the issue is not sex, or any purpose, but (to put it colloquially) only the awareness that the loved one exists–which then fills the whole world.

Another exemplary illustration of Rand’s literary style is one recently pointed out by John Enright in a verse from Ayn Rand’s Anthem:

“The fields are black and ploughed, and they lie like a great fan before us, with their furrows gathered in some hand beyond the sky, spreading forth from that hand, opening wide apart as they come toward us, like black pleats that sparkle with thin, green spangles.”

John correctly points out the emphasis on visual description–writing as if one were seeing or experiencing reality, not as if one were merely hearing a story being narrated. John says:

So she starts with a camera-eye view of receding parallel rows, finds a metaphor (“fan held by a giant hand”) for that appearance, and describes it as actively happening (“opening”). That’s pretty characteristic. Heck, then she turns the dirt into black pleats and the plants into green spangles, just to give a completely metaphorical vivid description.

Another aspect of Rand’s literary approach was noted by blogger Peter Saint-Andre, who said:

“Rand almost never compares an abstraction to a concrete or vice-versa, preferring to compare one concrete to another (the sky is like a huge furnace, smokestacks are fuming matchsticks, pine trees are tall red candles or like columns of dark brick, hotel towers are like the spokes of a fan, flat roofs are like pedals, roof gardens float down like handkerchiefs, stars are like foam).”

Essentially, Rand’s approach–as she most aptly labeled–is Romantic Realism, a perfect union of ideas and reality, as things ought to be and as they are in reality. Ever since I read Rand’s major fictional works–The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, and We The Living–I have dimly felt this sense of disappointment in not yet finding another work of fiction (or non-fiction, even) that has so intensely gripped my consciousness or that has left any lasting impressions in me. In fact, We The Living remains my favorite novel thus far.

Posted in Ayn Rand, Love and Romance, Philosophy of Art | 1 Comment »

Morality in Romantic Relationships

Posted by Jerry on October 22, 2006

A failure of the body is a weakness of the mind, but not a reflection of a weakness in the relationship you share with your lover. A deceit of the mind directed toward your lover is a sure sign of a weak–even dishonest and fake–relationship.

Further, I’d like to quote myself from one of my other posts:

Monogamy is not intrinsically moral as such. The morality of a relationship – regardless of its design – is an attribute of the integrity of the individuals involved in that relationship. Thus, two people involved in a monogamous relationship are not necessarily involved in a de facto “moral” relationship – nor would three people involved in a relationship be in a de facto “immoral” or lascivious relationship.

Personal integrity should be the hallmark of one’s character. Integrity subsumes honesty, and honesty means never faking reality. In relationships, as in other areas of life, there is no room for wilfull, deliberate and/or pernicious deceit. This connects with honesty, in that if there is any form of uncertainty, it should be brought out into the open. Any instance of wilful repression of doubt or faking of certainty is an instance of being deceitful and is compromising on your integrity.

Posted in Love and Romance, My Theories and Ideas, Personal, The Best of Leitmotif | 3 Comments »

%d bloggers like this: