A daily dose of philosophical food for your noodle!		NoodleFood : RSS Feed | via E-mail | Recent Comments | Archives NoodleCast : M4A via iTunes (MP3) | via Feed Reader | via E-mail Diana Hsieh : Rationally Selfish | PhiloFiles | Explore Atlas Shrugged OList Mailing Lists | FIRM | FRO | Secular Government

Friday, November 07, 2008 A Dedication By Diana Hsieh @ 12:10 PM In light of the recent discussion of my "gutter attitude toward human sexuality" on this recent thread [now moved here] of the so-called "Forum for Ayn Rand Fans," I would like to dedicate the following video to all of my devoted fans on that site: I've never watched Sex in the City, but people so offended by my occasional use of profanity on NoodleFood will surely be aghast at the sight of "eggs whites [with] a side of cock." Goodness gracious, they might even utter some kind of forbidden word in dismay. If so, I see only one recourse for the person of integrity: gargle with soap. Labels: False Friends of Objectivism, WTF Share |    E-mail Diana Hsieh     PermaLink ()    Comments (New Page)   Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader   via E-mail Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3)   via Feed Reader   via E-mail

Comments
	Friday, November 7, 2008 at 13:12:53 mst Comment ID: #1 Name: Rory Hodgson E-mail: cowboybebop(at)ntlworld.com This reminds me of Peikoff's 'Love, Sex and Romance' Q&A/Lecture/Seminar, where he was asked why Objectivists were such prudes. Jesus, lighten up already. Sex isn't a metaphysical duty sent down from the high heavens for us to solemnly perform. It's a fun, naughty, dirty, kinky thing and, out of context, it's very funny (because it's just such a private thing, that outside of the bedroom, it's just ludicrous).
	Friday, November 7, 2008 at 13:18:39 mst Comment ID: #2 Name: Kendall Justiniano E-mail: kendalljobj(at)gmail.com URL: http://crucibleandcolumn.blogspot.com/ Humpf! Diana, you pay them too much of a compliment to acknowledge their relevance. The references in that thread are so out of context to the assertion as to make your detractors appear positively Victorian.
	Friday, November 7, 2008 at 13:19:03 mst Comment ID: #3 Name: Matt E-mail: amicusaristoteles(at)yahoo.com URL: http://sleepisthebrotherofdeath.blogspot.com "The Forum" is populated with quite a few annoying characters (of course, this is not to say that they are ALL that way).That seems to be a general rule with discussion boards. There is a weird puritan streak running through some Objectivists. In fact, I asked Leonard Peikoff about this OCON '07 in Telluride and he seemed to agree. I honestly don't understand how a slightly blue joke or reference is indicative of a lack of self-respect. Honestly, by that standard, I am Satan himself.
	Friday, November 7, 2008 at 13:22:41 mst Comment ID: #4 Name: Matt E-mail: amicusaristoteles(at)yahoo.com URL: http://sleepisthebrotherofdeath.blogspot.com Rory-- Hmm. I've been putting off buying 'Love, Sex and Romance' for a long time now. It seems like it would be interesting. Do you recommend it?
	Friday, November 7, 2008 at 13:29:06 mst Comment ID: #5 Name: Jeff Montgomery E-mail: jamontgom(at)hotmail.com URL: http://funwithgravity.blogspot.com/ Such critics should try reading your blog on a regular basis and then make up their minds. If they were honest they'd quit sniping at you and start supporting you. What matters to me is action. As long as the ideas are good (they are) and you fight for them (which you do, in spades), you can say whatever you want. (as if you needed approval) I wasn't a regular viewer of Sex In The City, but when I've watched I've enjoyed it. On the face of it, a show about 4 girlfriends in NYC does not appeal to me, but it ended up being more universal than that. Good writing and cast.
	Friday, November 7, 2008 at 13:36:18 mst Comment ID: #6 Name: Andrew Baker E-mail: smoke_owner(at)mac.com Clip is nice. I don't get what the critics' problem is. Heavens forbid we use salty language.
	Friday, November 7, 2008 at 13:42:15 mst Comment ID: #7 Name: Ryan Mulkerin "It's a fun, naughty, dirty, kinky thing" I would avoid calling sex naughty or dirty which is taking a rather Christian view of sexuality. To avoid confusion, I agree with the rest of what you said.
	Friday, November 7, 2008 at 13:46:07 mst Comment ID: #8 Name: Mike M I also have difficulty in taking such prudishness too seriously. I found it particularily amusing that one forum participant wrote "the s-word" instead of just writing "shit," as if there was some intrinsic badness residing in that forbidden word. Moreover, it is wrong, oh so wrong, to suggest that there is anything wrong with the idea of "Steak & Blowjob Day." Great Blog. -Mike
	Friday, November 7, 2008 at 14:02:12 mst Comment ID: #9 Name: Diana Hsieh E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog Sex might not be dirty, but it is gooey. And that's one of the reasons why -- as LP points out in that excellent "Love, Sex, and Romance" Q&A -- rationalists hate it so much.
	Friday, November 7, 2008 at 14:02:24 mst Comment ID: #10 Name: Stephen Macklin E-mail: smacklin(at)optonline.net They certainly do seem to be humorless group.
	Friday, November 7, 2008 at 14:09:04 mst Comment ID: #11 Name: Dan G. I don't trust people who don't use "profanity"; I'm not sure exactly why (maybe they seem too fake?), but I don't.
	Friday, November 7, 2008 at 14:17:09 mst Comment ID: #12 Name: Mark Wickens E-mail: noodlefood(at)wickens.ca URL: http://randex.org/ Brad Aisa is back on the internet?!
	Friday, November 7, 2008 at 14:54:21 mst Comment ID: #13 Name: Michael Labeit E-mail: logician169(at)yahoo.com URL: http://unit-perspective.blogspot.com I think people should come to the realization that NoodleFood is an informal blog - its not the Harvard Law Review. In addition to this, it must be noted that profane language does indeed possess utility. I've noticed that foul language is an excellent tool for conveying a certain sense of annoyance or banality e.g "WTF is taking so long!" Profanity can also be used to convey a sense of urgency. This function of profanity is especially employed in the military.
	Friday, November 7, 2008 at 14:54:35 mst Comment ID: #14 Name: Adam Reed E-mail: adamreedatalumdotmitdotedu URL: http://www.calstatela.edu/faculty/areed2 So we have Objectivism-plated Pragmatists (Alan Greenspan and others,) Objectivism-plated Conservatives (David Kelley and others,) Objectivism-plated Hegelians (Chris Sciabarra and others.) We even have Objectivism-plated determinists (those who reject non-deterministic entity-causation, you know who you are.) Why am I not surprised by the evident existence of Objectivism-plated Puritans? Or that they would be, or pretend to have been, "offended?" And by the way, hurray for sex toys. There are days when my wife needs to be in the lab by 6 AM, and I finish teaching at 10 PM, and by the time I get home she's asleep. No plastic penis with egg whites for me, but a concave vibrator is just the thing with wine and cheese at midnight. And the video IS funny. Thank you, Diana!
	Friday, November 7, 2008 at 15:03:19 mst Comment ID: #15 Name: Tori E-mail: tori.press(at)gmail.com No worries, Diana. Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win.... I learned that from NoodleFood!
	Friday, November 7, 2008 at 15:04:10 mst Comment ID: #16 Name: Dan G. "Objectivism-plated..." What a wonderful term! Or should I say... Fucking marvelous!
	Friday, November 7, 2008 at 15:11:04 mst Comment ID: #17 Name: New-Be E-mail: SteelJaw22(at)yahoo.com "So we have Objectivism-plated Pragmatists (Alan Greenspan and others,) Objectivism-plated Conservatives (David Kelley and others,) Objectivism-plated Hegelians (Chris Sciabarra and others.) We even have Objectivism-plated determinists (those who reject non-deterministic entity-causation, you know who you are.) Why am I not surprised by the evident existence of Objectivism-plated Puritans?" I've just recently noticed this. It seems that there are many ways to "get Rand wrong" while still being an Objectivist or at least claiming to be one. Perhaps the word "Objectivish" should become an official term and have an entry in the Ayn Rand Lexicon. I think Objectivism is like sailing at sea. If you get your bearing wrong, you could end up hundreds of miles off course (if not worse). With Objectivism it seems that if you get the epistemology even slightly wrong, you could end up veering wildly off course as well. I notice this with myself first and foremost. My conclusion, studying Objectivism (and mastering its complexities) is no easy thing.
	Friday, November 7, 2008 at 15:12:55 mst Comment ID: #18 Name: Jennifer Snow E-mail: Snowconic(at)hotmail.com URL: http://literatrix.blogspot.com I've always preferred people who speak like Francisco: precise, cultured English deliberately mixed with slang. I like the beautifully complex eloquence that results from using every vocabulary word I know too much to limit myself with so-called conventionality. I encourage Diana to keep disrespectin' those twits. :P
	Friday, November 7, 2008 at 15:17:32 mst Comment ID: #19 Name: animal I like talking about sex with whom I'm having sex with, and I'm definitely not prudish with him. But when I start talking to other people about it-when it's public knowledge, like the fact that I use the toilet, the thought of it becomes so much less naughty and wonderful. But I have no problem with Diana talking about it.
	Friday, November 7, 2008 at 15:53:49 mst Comment ID: #20 Name: John Harris E-mail: John.Harris00 at gmail.com Someone should explain a simple concept to that guy, Bill. 'This is the Internet, and No, we don't care.' Diana I've sent links to your site to friends, which isn't something I do very often; but your site is one that I'm happy to send away and stand by even when they say, well mean things. I don't care for the stuffy stick up their ass Objectivists, but from here on out when I give money to the ARI, I'm going to demand that it only be used on projects which have you associated with. John.
	Friday, November 7, 2008 at 15:57:13 mst Comment ID: #21 Name: Diana Hsieh E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog animal -- You'll notice that, while I occasionally speak about sex in general terms, I don't write about my own sex life. That would violate what I ought to keep as private to my marriage. And it would be "too much information" for everyone else.
	Friday, November 7, 2008 at 16:06:16 mst Comment ID: #22 Name: Burgess Laughlin E-mail: burgesslaughlin(at)macforcego.com URL: http://www.aristotleadventure.blogspot.com Michael Labeit: "I think people should come to the realization that NoodleFood is an informal blog - its not the Harvard Law Review." Michael, this is an intriguing point. Could you or someone else identify the _principled_ difference between the two settings? What _principle_ should guide a writer in deciding whether to use profane language in one form of writing (if in any) but not in another?
	Friday, November 7, 2008 at 16:14:02 mst Comment ID: #23 Name: Burgess Laughlin E-mail: burgesslaughlin(at)macforcego.com URL: http://www.aristotleadventure.blogspot.com John Harris: "I don't care for the stuffy stick up their ass Objectivists, but . . ." Would you please give examples? Would this description apply to Ayn Rand? If not, would you cite examples of the sort of profanity discussed here being used by Ayn Rand in her public writings?
	Friday, November 7, 2008 at 16:15:26 mst Comment ID: #24 Name: Paul Hsieh E-mail: paul(at)geekpress(dot)com URL: http://www.geekpress.com Burgess: Wouldn't one use the same guidelines as for profanity in verbal speech? In other words, it depends on the context, especially the audience, setting, and message. I speak one way at the office when with patients, hospital employees, and fellow physicians. I speak a different way with my parents. I speak a different way when at a barbecue with friends while quaffing beers and commmenting about the latest Obama proposal for more "sacrifice".
	Friday, November 7, 2008 at 16:29:46 mst Comment ID: #25 Name: Chris Sandvick E-mail: chrissandvick(at)hotmail.com "so-called?" The Forum members are not Ayn Rand fans? I find this feud tiresome but can't there at least be a granting of Forum members good intentions? Betsy Speicher is a long time Objectivist and "humorless" or "prude" couldn't be more inappropriately applied. Folks, the use of profanity or not says absolutely NOTHING about sexual attitude or proclivity. Speculating Bill Bucko's a prude on the basis of his comments is psychologizing.
	Friday, November 7, 2008 at 17:00:27 mst Comment ID: #26 Name: Galileo Blogs E-mail: rayniles(at)rcniles.com URL: http://galileoblogs.blogspot.com New Yorkers curse. Goddam, I love it!
	Friday, November 7, 2008 at 17:01:01 mst Comment ID: #27 Name: Kyle Haight E-mail: khaight(at)alumni.ucsd.edu URL: http://www.leftist.org/haightspeech/ "You'll notice that, while I occasionally speak about sex in general terms, I don't write about my own sex life. That would violate what I ought to keep as private to my marriage." Thank you, Diana. I have exactly the same attitude. Part of what makes sex precious is the intimacy. Sharing the details with J. Random Bystander cheapens that. I have been accused of being prudish simply because I don't wish to discuss the details of my personal kinks in public, which is exactly backwards. Paraphrasing Rand's remarks on hard-core pornography, I don't keep my sex life private because I think it's bad, I keep it private because it's *good*. I'd also like to register agreement with Jennifer Snow's linguistic preferences. Colloquialisms (and the occasional profanity) are like spices in a recipe -- useful for emphasis, but you can't live off them.
	Friday, November 7, 2008 at 17:18:15 mst Comment ID: #28 Name: Michael Labeit E-mail: logician(at)169(at)yahoo.com URL: http://unit-perspective.blogspot.com Burgess, I think the difference between the Harvard Law Review and NF is purpose. According to the law review's website, their purpose is, "to publish a journal of legal scholarship" as well as to "be an effective research tool for practicing lawyers and students of the law" and provide "opportunities for Review members to develop their own editing and writing skills." The purpose of NoodleFood is to provide "a daily dose of philosophical food for your noodle." The former, since it involves matters of jurisprudence, requires strict adherence to grammatical discipline and vocabulary. If I write for the Review and decide to critique eminent domain, I'm not going to begin by saying "eminent domainers are schmucks." That however could easily be said on NF without reprimand.
	Friday, November 7, 2008 at 18:17:33 mst Comment ID: #29 Name: Thomas E-mail: thomas.rogers(at)hotmail.co.uk URL: http://thomas-rogers.blogspot.com/ Heh heh heh.. 'Naughty' words can be fun. =D I joined that forum a while ago, but have since stopped using it (for the reasons people have mentioned in the above comments...) "This reminds me of Peikoff's 'Love, Sex and Romance' Q&A/Lecture/Seminar, where he was asked why Objectivists were such prudes" I've been considering buying that, what's it like?
	Friday, November 7, 2008 at 18:26:32 mst Comment ID: #30 Name: Burgess Laughlin E-mail: burgesslaughlin(at)macforcego.com URL: http://www.aristotleadventure.blogspot.com Paul Hsieh: "Wouldn't one use the same guidelines as for profanity in verbal speech?" By "verbal," I assume you mean spoken. Yes--if I knew what those guidelines, and the principle underlying them, are. > "In other words, it depends on the context, especially the audience, setting, and message." This is a good comment. (Private joke.) The reason that your comment is good (for me) is that it identifies an element of the problem, but unfortunately "depends on the context" raises the very question at issue: What is the principle that sets the context? > "I speak one way at the office when with patients, hospital employees, and fellow physicians. I speak a different way with my parents. I speak a different way when at a barbecue with friends while quaffing beers and commmenting about the latest Obama proposal for more 'sacrifice'." Yes, I too speak differently--in type of words (not only profane vs. non-profane, but also technical versus common, for example); length of sentence; form of argument (deductive vs. inductive); and so forth. The different circumstances you have named again raise the question at issue: Why does one circumstance supposedly call for one style (excretory profanity, for example) and another circumstance a different style (no profanity whatsoever, for example)? What is the principle? I don't have a clear answer. I think Michael Labeit, in comment 28, is on the right trail: purpose is one determinant. It explains, perhaps, why one would _not_ use excretory profanity, for example, in one setting. It doesn't explain why one _would_ use it in any other setting that is both public and recorded. Thank you for the serious (non-profane) discussion. Making progress.
	Friday, November 7, 2008 at 19:06:34 mst Comment ID: #31 Name: Amy Nasir I have to spill the beans about Bill Bucko on this one. I know him, and he used to go to Objectivist study groups where I also attended. I can't count how many times he would tell the room at large how he would love to eat food off of Christina Applegate's breasts. Yes -- he said BREASTS and gestured how he would eat! (Oh, how vulgar!) He'd go on and on about it. This was 10 or so years ago, but I have to state for the record that he has no business criticizing you for your use of profanity. I stopped having anything to do with him, primarily because he would try to morally denounce anyone who enjoyed rock or rap music, and would call me and my friends generation-xers. (I can't believe the old coot is still using that term!) I have to out his hypocrisy here, especially after his call not to support ARI programs associated with your extraordinary philsophical work and activism. (I don't know how you do it -- You are awesome!) Bucko should be boycotting himself! Personally, I don't normally swear, unless I'm alone and something bad happens. It's a bit of a release, but even then I try to temper it, because it can put me even more into a bad mood. But I have no problem with swearing when the context calls for it, because words have meanings, and I could think of some appropriate names for Bucko. Anytime I hear sex being described as dirty or naughty or bad, I automatically think of Christianity and the perversion of sex as something evil, loveless and unclean. I enjoy sex, and pleasure in general, and I think there should be more of it in the world -- lots of nakedness, gooey stuff and sex toys -- and meaningful lusty love!!
	Friday, November 7, 2008 at 19:14:27 mst Comment ID: #32 Name: Paul Revere LMFAO foul-mouthed generation-xer! simmer down you whipper snappers! pull your pants up!
	Friday, November 7, 2008 at 19:20:11 mst Comment ID: #33 Name: animal I'm sorry, but I think gooey is the most un-sexy word to describe sex imaginable!! Wet and fluid is more like it. Gooey sounds like something smelly, or something used in an exam; not something that causes or is the result of arousal. it's also too childish sounding of a word for me to want to use it to describe a part of my life far removed from childhood. The curse words are much better.
	Friday, November 7, 2008 at 19:41:39 mst Comment ID: #34 Name: Freddy Ben-Zeev E-mail: benzeev(at)comcast(dot)net Burgess, I think that Dr. Peikoff touch on that issue in his Objective Communication. I don't have the time to go deeper, so I'll just indicate the direction. Think about communication as objective, not intrinsic or subjective. This implies an objective relation with the person or persons you communicate with and is done within a context.
	Friday, November 7, 2008 at 19:53:56 mst Comment ID: #35 Name: Keath Cole E-mail: pokerinavan(at)gmail.com URL: http://www.pokervan.net That whole Speicher faction is hurtling toward absurdity and irrelevance with a welcomed and hilarious alacrity.
	Friday, November 7, 2008 at 20:25:50 mst Comment ID: #36 Name: Anonymous Fan of Sex and Profanity (in their proper contexts, of course!) Good Lord, does Betsy keep a database of every time Diana uses profanities? How else can she just whip out a list like that? And really, she can't even say "the S-word" on The Forum? She doesn't work for the FCC, does she?
	Friday, November 7, 2008 at 20:48:46 mst Comment ID: #37 Name: animal speaking of sexy, the poker coach has a sexy voice.
	Friday, November 7, 2008 at 21:41:30 mst Comment ID: #38 Name: Diana Hsieh E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog Animal, what can I say, I love gooey! Amy, wow, that's beyond gross. I never think of poor Christina's breasts the same again.
	Friday, November 7, 2008 at 22:07:53 mst Comment ID: #39 Name: Amy Nasir Diana, I thought you might find that interesting in a creepy sort of way. Beyond gross is right. (Bucko was a BIG fan of "Married With Children.") :-p But what's most disgusting is the time and energy that Forum members put into trying to lambast you, when they could be doing something productive and meaningful like joining your wonderful OActivists list and sending letters to the media and government and *inspiring* others to do the same. Thanks for doing all that you do!
	Friday, November 7, 2008 at 22:41:23 mst Comment ID: #40 Name: Diana Hsieh E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog Thank you for your kind words, Amy!
	Friday, November 7, 2008 at 22:41:31 mst Comment ID: #41 Name: KPO'M E-mail: ka84796(at)comcast.net Just let it go, Diana. The biggest problem with the Objectivist cause from the start is that many of its supposed adherents have engaged in divisive, rather petty disputes that distract us from the larger issue. As I told Betsy once, I'd rather be right than be an "Objectivist." Our goal should be to find the truth, and not to find out what Ayn Rand would have thought. While they are often the same, they aren't necessarily so. I will say this about the Forum. Brad Aisa, Rick Wilmes, and lately Rational Ryan have been posting some pretty good things there. Others, including a few who I disagree with, have made some good points that I've given some thought to. If someone gets closer to the truth by reading or reacting to something written there, all the better.
	Friday, November 7, 2008 at 23:30:01 mst Comment ID: #42 Name: Justin O. E-mail: codeanxiety(at)gmail.com Does it say something about me that I found absolutely nothing wrong with any of the links that were posted regarding your "gutter attitude." No, seriously... Is there something I'm not seeing? The last time I saw Betsy attack someone it was the final straw that turned me off Objectivism for a few years. To be fair, I just finished reading Atlas Shrugged for the first time and didn't know what to make of the Branden split. I not saying she was personally responsible, I just didn't have a stomach for that kind of thing at the time. I don't know why people feel the need to resort to name calling without giving their reasons, it seems petty and it turns off casual lurkers, like me, who are just starting to investigate Ayn Rand and her ideas... a lot more then the "s-word" does.
	Saturday, November 8, 2008 at 0:08:02 mst Comment ID: #43 Name: Mike E-mail: atlas51184(at)comcast.net Am I more or less evil if I am Generation Y?
	Saturday, November 8, 2008 at 0:14:25 mst Comment ID: #44 Name: Jim May E-mail: seerak(at)gmail.com Interesting multi-discussion here. "Objectivism-plated" -- har! I think I'll hold onto that one. Mark Wickens writes: "Brad Aisa is back on the internet?! " Damn, there's a name I've not heard in a long, long time. I've met him though, during my time in Toronto. He could really piss me off occasionally, but he can be a pretty sharp guy too. Diana writes: "I don't write about my own sex life. That would violate what I ought to keep as private to my marriage." Same here. If I did that, I'd be hearing some choice words from *my* Diana :) Regarding profanity, my approach has always been to use it as "spice". Good to add some sharpness to dialogue, but easily prone to overuse if I'm not careful.
	Saturday, November 8, 2008 at 0:16:14 mst Comment ID: #45 Name: Ryan C Diana, in the few years I've been around the Objectivist community nothing has perplexed me more than the prudishness of many Objectivists. I understand the great value of sex, and the value one should hold for his or her own body and it's functions, but that does not mean one can never speak of sex aloud. It's quite perplexing from a group of people who are brought together in the interest of a philosopher whose one strictly philosophic view on sex was that it was "good". :) Also, after discussion with a good person whose been ostracized by the Forum I am going to cease my contact with the place. This high-prudishness, combined with their apologetic defenses of the religious right has become too much to stand. To see this attack on a person like yourself only confirms my belief that these people are rather disconnected with reality and gleefully so. I appreciate you bringing this to my attention, and others on informing of the relationship between yourself and that board of supposed Objectivists. -Ryan.
	Saturday, November 8, 2008 at 0:19:31 mst Comment ID: #46 Name: Jim May E-mail: seerak(at)gmail.com "There is a weird puritan streak running through some Objectivists." Might this streak coincide with the same Objectivists who insist that homosexuality necessarily involves some kind of error/evasion/whatnot? Back in the alt.philosophy.objectivism, Stephen Grossman was one of those; then I ran into a couple at the Lake Tahoe conference who thought similarly. I'm of the camp that says that sexual orientation is largely (if not totally) decided early on, outside the reach of free choice -- not unlike height or temperament.
	Saturday, November 8, 2008 at 3:21:51 mst Comment ID: #47 Name: Henrik Sundholm E-mail: henrik.sundholm(at)gmail.com URL: http://www.equil.net/ Diana: Sex doesn't have to be gooey at all. That would be a lot depending on one's own preferences. I'd say less talking, and more spanking! ;-)
	Saturday, November 8, 2008 at 3:28:58 mst Comment ID: #48 Name: Henrik Sundholm E-mail: henrik.sundholm(at)gmail.com URL: http://www.equil.net/ Jim: Nathaniel Branden says homosexuals are incapable of real romantic love. That's one of the few moronic things he's said *as a psychologist*. (As a critic of Objectivism, he's said a lot more moronic things.) Oh, and I think it would be a lot easier to control one's temperament than one's sexual orientation. I've been able to, gradualy, change my temperament by will. Not my sexual orientation though (even if I wanted - which I don't).
	Saturday, November 8, 2008 at 8:22:53 mst Comment ID: #49 Name: C Andrew E-mail: ca4papen(at)mindspring.com Anytime I hear sex being described as dirty or naughty or bad, I automatically think of Christianity and the perversion of sex as something evil, loveless and unclean. I enjoy sex, and pleasure in general, and I think there should be more of it in the world -- lots of nakedness, gooey stuff and sex toys -- and meaningful lusty love!! Amy, When I was a devout Christian, so devoted that I journeyed to the Far East to bring the Lord's Good Word to the Benighted Buddhists, I was paired with a native speaker and we were teaching a young seeker (college age) about moral cleanliness; specifically, the evils of masturbation. Although I was fluent in the language, the native speaker was the senior (and a hierarchical asshole of the first order) so I was listening to him berate our hapless seeker. And as a cognitive aid to assist our seeker in reforming his behaviour, he recommended that when the temptation came (snicker) upon him, that he visualize all of his dead ancestors watching him do the dirty deed. I thought at the time, "Well, if that's not the high road to sexual dysfunction..." And this in a culture that still practiced ancestor worship. So, I'm not sure if he was recommending spiritual incest, exhibitionism, or necrophilia. Is there actually a name for exhibitionist sexual congress with spiritual beings? Oh, that's right, immaculate reception (it being football season and all).
	Saturday, November 8, 2008 at 8:30:15 mst Comment ID: #50 Name: C Andrew E-mail: ca4papen(at)mindspring.com All right, I realize that it should have been virginal conception if you want the spiritual component not immaculate since that refers to his mother. But I succumbed to context. I couldn't have the football without it! I want to have my cake and eat it too! After all we're all born in sin and... Whoops! that was me channelling my Christian Pre-Student of Objectivsim Self. Sorry.
	Saturday, November 8, 2008 at 8:51:03 mst Comment ID: #51 Name: z E-mail: shekfu(at)hotmail.com "I stopped paying attention to Diana when she..." "I REALLY stopped paying any attention to her when..." "I started extremely ignoring her blog after..." "I blocked her site from appearing in my browser when I read on her blog that..." "Lemme get back to you on that, I'm combing her site for some more evidence of her..."
	Saturday, November 8, 2008 at 9:08:10 mst Comment ID: #52 Name: Burgess Laughlin E-mail: burgesslaughlin(at)macforcego.com URL: http://www.aristotleadventure.blogspot.com Freddy Ben-Zeev: "Burgess, I think that Dr. Peikoff touch[ed] on that issue in his Objective Communication [lectures]." I am familiar with Dr. Peikoff's 10 lectures, "Objective Communication." I bought the audio tapes many years ago. I have listened to them twice. I have 29 pages of single-spaced notes on his lectures and on Ayn Rand's comments. I do not have a transcript. In searching the file, I found no reference to "profanity." In searching for "style," I do see a note (not a transcription) that says, for Lecture 1, Tape 2, Side A: Q&A question 12. What is your evaluation of Jane Fonda's ideas and communication style? Ayn Rand's answer: Both are awful. I will not say more because I do not approve of obscenities in public communication. (Q&A with Ayn Rand in 1980, approximately the 12th question in that particular session) I am still thinking about this issue, but at this point, I do not see that there is any justification for using obscenities or other profanities in public communication (written or spoken) or even in recorded private communications (which have a way of becoming public). Further I doubt there is any justification for using obscenities or other types of profanities at any time. In a sense, such comments are "naturalistic" in that they reduce life, in whole or in part, to a demeaning scope and level. I wonder too if they are a symptom of a concrete-bound mentality, at least in one or more compartments of that person's mind. I personally despise obscenities in particular, profanities in general, and "naturalism" universally. However, in evaluating a person as a whole, I would not consider it to be an essential (causal) element. I would want to know what that person creates for the good, and I would want to to know the root of the use of profanity, to look for essential characteristics, if any, underlying the use of profanity. Consider a fictional example: possibly Mike the construction worker who befriended Howard Roark in _The Fountainhead_. If he spoke profanely when he heard bad news about Roark, I world evaluate it differently than if he spoke profanely about Dominique or Steve Mallory. Until I can think more about these issues, I won't comment further. This has been a very stimulating discussion, at least the part dealing with principles.
	Saturday, November 8, 2008 at 9:15:42 mst Comment ID: #53 Name: Mike E-mail: mikedialjatnetscapedotnet Just because I'm committed to following reason, that doesn't mean I have to be brittle. As long as I'm not hurting anyone (including myself) I occasionally use a few swear words and off-color humor.
	Saturday, November 8, 2008 at 10:09:09 mst Comment ID: #54 Name: Tony Donadio E-mail: tdonadio(at)optonline.net Burgess, I'd put the question the other way around: what justification is there for regarding the public use of profanity, or of "colorful" or open language about sex in general, as objectively immoral? Because that's what it seems to me that a few (though hardly all) of the participants on the linked thread are doing. I don't begrudge anyone the sense-of-life preference for the kind of propriety about language that was common in the generations prior to my own (including Ayn Rand's), and to some extent in my own generation as well (I'm a late boomer). I even tend to lean a bit toward that style myself, although by no means entirely. For example, having been raised in a culture that projected a great deal of hostility and guilt about sex, I thoroughly approve -- and for philosophic reasons -- of the kind of self-confident openness about the subject that is more common today. In any event, I see a difference between a legitimate (and optional) sense-of-life preference on the one hand, and a basis for the kind of (in my view, unjust) hostility that, for example, Bill Bucko expressed. In my view, if you're going to denounce someone for their use of language, then you should make an objective case for it, and leave irrelevant prejudices like the generation they were born in out of your commentary. That goes double if you're going to do it on a thread that was started to discuss that person's objectively demonstrable successes in advancing the values that you allege to believe in yourself. While I don't mean to suggest that this is what you're doing, I don't approach life from the perspective of considering behavior to be immoral and unacceptable unless I can think of a "justification" for it. Unless I have a rationally and philosophically demonstrable reason to think otherwise, as a matter of principle I refrain from trying to elevate my personal values and preferences (or Ayn Rand's, for that matter) into objective norms. And it does take more to make that kind of case than to say that such comments reduce life to a "demeaning scope or level." That seems to me to presume the premise that's at issue in the first place: that there is something objectively value-hostile or "demeaning" about the use of profanity, or of "colorful" or otherwise open language about sex.
	Saturday, November 8, 2008 at 10:29:02 mst Comment ID: #55 Name: Diana Hsieh E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog Burgess -- While I certainly don't use Ayn Rand as a standard for my own writing, the fact is that she did use profanities pretty routinely in the dialogue of her fiction work, particularly "damn" and "hell." To be precise, her heroes used them -- and I'd say, to very good effect. At least when I was growing up, those words were considered swear words. And I have been chastised for using them by Christians quite recently. As for why I might occasionally use swear words on NoodleFood, the basic reason is pretty simple: NoodleFood is, in part, an expression of my own personal values and personality. I'm able to meet the kind of people I like through it precisely because (and only because) it's not a dry academic discussion of purely intellectual matters. So I post things that I find funny, for example, even if a bit off-color. The kind of people who are seriously put off by that are the kind of people that I'd prefer not to spend my time. They probably wouldn't like me in person, and I probably wouldn't like them. In other words, it's a kind of filter. That being said, I have been known to swear more than I really ought -- just in speech, not in writing. I have deliberately reined myself in of late. However, I would never consider eliminating all such words from my vocabulary, as I see them as a useful form of emphasis.
	Saturday, November 8, 2008 at 11:00:42 mst Comment ID: #56 Name: Nicholas Provenzo E-mail: nprovenzo(at)capitalismcenter.org URL: http://www.capitalismcenter.org This post and its comments have left me with the same high one gets when jacked up on giggle cream.
	Saturday, November 8, 2008 at 11:26:44 mst Comment ID: #57 Name: Paul Hsieh E-mail: paul(at)geekpress(dot)com URL: http://www.geekpress.com I didn't know what Nick meant by "giggle cream" until I Googled the phrase. At first, I thought it was a euphemism for something much raunchier, like on the classic "If You Know What I Mean" skits from the TV show "Whose Line Is It Anyways?". For those who aren't familiar with these skits, the premise is that the comedians are workers in a particular job who have to use phrases that sound like sexual innuendo but aren't. Here are a few examples: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKO8lZp41BM http://www.metacafe.com/watch/yt-8G4l45y1OUM/whose_line_is_it_anywa ... http://www.veoh.com/videos/v6582029nfGxte4P
	Saturday, November 8, 2008 at 11:53:46 mst Comment ID: #58 Name: Chris Sandvick E-mail: chrissandvick(at)hotmail.com Just to be clear, I don't agree with Bill Bucko's comment on any level. I'm objecting to what looks like an overly broad bush tarring of anyone who is over at the Forum as so-called fans of Ayn Rand or "false friends" of Objectivism. Is Betsy Speicher a false friend of Objectivism? Why?
	Saturday, November 8, 2008 at 12:10:07 mst Comment ID: #59 Name: Diana Hsieh E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog Chris -- In short, Betsy is a false friend of Objectivism because (1) she advocates views blatantly contrary to Objectivism on moral judgment, on the role of philosophy in the culture and history, and on logic. (I don't have time to look up the links, but she has advocated those views on The Forum and ObjectivismOnline in the past two to three years -- at great length and against much opposition.) And (2) she has seen fit to provide a platform for inexcusable attacks on Objectivist intellectuals, most notably Leonard Peikoff and Robert Mayhew. (Again, you'll have to look up the links yourself.) Notably, I am a target of their attacks -- my honesty and integrity questioned, likened to Comrade Sonia (!!) yet again -- because I defended Leonard Peikoff in 2006. That's something I'll never regret. As Betsy says, you get the friends and enemies you deserve.
	Saturday, November 8, 2008 at 13:50:53 mst Comment ID: #60 Name: Chris Cathcart E-mail: cathcacr(at)gmail.com URL: http://chriscathcart.blogspot.com Different styles for different forums, but a number of years back on the humanities.philosophy.objectivism forum, Ms. Speicher made herself a frequent target of insults (including by yours truly), and really quite deservedly so. She had a penchant for screwing up formulations of Objectivist ideas and doing a lousy job of answering for them when she was called on them. (My own temperament has improved since then; my tone towards those who do a lousy job promoting what should be rational ideas is much more a humorous one than an angry one. And, again, different styles occur in different forums. So-called "gutter language" is standard for h.p.o. and it's great when it's done well. In my own blog, I keep it more bloggy -- in a recent instance, instead of "Saying 'Fuck you!' to the GOP" it was "Giving the middle finger to the GOP." And needless to say, I wasn't alone in not getting along well with Ms. Speicher's late husband -- in part due to my temperament but in great part due to his. Come to think of it, it's all too similar that of Lindsay Perigo, who takes pride in being a jerk -- something he regards as necessary to make a stand and keep out the bad apples -- and the quality of SOLO has fallen drastically as a result.) As for Diana's colorful use of language, it's just downright silly for whoever it is over in the Forum to attribute to her a "gutter attitude" towards sex. The links Betsy posted show no such thing. Typical for her, I'm afraid. I don't care that she has been in the movement for over 40 years and has built up this big network of connections; I haven't been impressed with the result. Her partisanship is what got to me a lot as well. I don't imagine her posting such silly links in support of branding someone a certain way if it was someone on "her side." There is something interesting in watching all this human drama of "factional" quarrels and divisions; it hardly makes the Objectivist movement unique (lord knows the direction I'm going in these days is bound to be labeled heretical but I make no bones about where I'm exploring and what I'm thinking and don't proclaim to be advancing an Objectivist position) and it is all quite good and necessary for people to sort out the friends and enemies they deserve. On a somewhat related note to that, I'm willing to keep the discussion in the "Obama, Rand and Selfishness" comments going, if anyone actually still follows blog comments after the entry is several days old. (Long story short: Obama = intellectualism and competence; GOP = anti-intellectualism and incompetence.) I just want to throw in here that it's nice to see that Brad Aisa has made it back to the internets. I was wondering where he went. Oh, and just to keep the discussion "in the gutter" for productive ends, I just learned today that Fucking, Austria is an actual village: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fucking,_Austria :-D
	Saturday, November 8, 2008 at 16:39:19 mst Comment ID: #61 Name: animal "Anytime I hear sex being described as dirty or naughty or bad..." Dirty and naughty are not necessarily bad, and I can't think of sex as some pure, clean, ritual, or purely a philosophic embrace of the value I see in another person. Sex is raunchy, and to me, it's less sexy if it's not. i think part of sex is not rational--maybe i disagree with Objectivists on this.. don't know.. But I know that when I became a teenager, HORMONES sparked my sex drive, not an individual person that I would have been rationally attracted to.
	Saturday, November 8, 2008 at 18:18:30 mst Comment ID: #62 Name: IchorFigure Actually I can easily recall one instance where Rand did use profanity in public speaking. If you listen to one of her Ford Hall Forum lectures, during the Q & A she fields a question about abortion. She answers with extreme indignation that the nerve of "some bitches" to tell other women what to do with their own bodies is inexcusable. She also added "and I don't apologize". I don't know of any other instances, but the fact she wasn't inclined to profanity made it all the more striking in such a rare instance.
	Saturday, November 8, 2008 at 19:00:47 mst Comment ID: #63 Name: Chris Cathcart E-mail: cathcacr(at)gmail.com URL: http://chriscathcart.blogspot.com Rand used more traditional swear-words, e.g. "Bastard", "Goddamn," "Son of a bitch," and I gather she used them sparingly. What do the official Objectivist authorities these days have to say on using "Fuck" and "shit" and "prick"? I need to know so that I know whether or not to tell those fuckers where they can shove it. :-)
	Sunday, November 9, 2008 at 1:18:28 mst Comment ID: #64 Name: Blue Choosing the vocabulary appropriate for a certain context is much like choosing the state of dress that suits your context. Formal atmosphere = formal clothing = formal vocabulary. Casual atmosphere = casual clothing = casual vocabulary. To compare a bit to an earlier example, Harvard Law Review if it were a place attended rather than a website where nobody saw you would be a place you’d probably be called for to wear at least a good button down shirt and slacks. Noodlefood? Go ahead, jeans and t-shirts welcome, but the line is drawn at coming in wearing the same t-shirt and jeans for a week smelling like a dump. You wouldn’t say somebody had a foul sense of life for wearing some old beat up sweat suit on laundry day, that somehow that they would wear something that wasn’t always pristine meant they saw life as being overall a bunch of junk, so why can’t there be an appropriate context where saying “shit” doesn’t mean that’s what you think life is? Law of identity about contexts I tell you! Not everything in life is the most serious, sacred of occasions and so they don’t need to be treated as such always. Language isn’t an exception, that it for some reason MUST ALWAYS avoid being rough around the edges. The same goes for sex too. Sex can be a beautiful experience, but that doesn’t mean there can never be anything less than such about it and that we’ve always got to be uptight about it. Does somebody have an overall irreverent view of sex because they maybe fell out of bed in the middle of such and accidentally hit the remote control and turned on Barney and laughed at that? Of course not. Besides, what does never cursing even in informal and/or negative contexts accomplish? It won’t prevent less than grand things from happening, stop them from getting worse, or undo them (well, unless the context would be you cursing somebody out, then not doing so may help you out some. But it isn’t as if you can’t accomplish making somebody just as displeased without ever using any “four letter words.” You just might need more words to do it.) About “dirty” and “naughty” as far as describing sex, I don’t think using those terms means you must have some implicit bad view of sex, particularly if “dirty” is taken literally. However, they’re not my favorite terms for it. “Naughty” implies “bad,” but even if you don’t mean “bad” as in actually morally bad, it still has always sounded kind of ridiculous and hard to take seriously to me. “Dirty,” while sex can be something messy, I’m more of the view of it as something that is rather clean in another sense. Many people feel the need to shower after sex, I’d fall more into a view of showering as something to do first, that you can be not clean enough for it. Sex in my view is something to go into typically at your best and even if you come out of it looking a wreck, you go into it looking presentable.
	Sunday, November 9, 2008 at 8:31:05 mst Comment ID: #65 Name: Bill Perry E-mail: wperryster(at)gmail(dot)com I thought that the highlight of OCON 2008 included an obscenity uttered by Tara Smith. Of course you have to know the context. Tara gave a magnificent lecture about pragmatism. During the Q & A someone asked a question about arguing with people, and suggested that it was futile to argue with people today, and that we should focus on education, because they can't understand examples taken from real life. Tara came from her speaking position to the edge of the stage and talked about what, ". . . all of the goddamn pragmatists have done to our economy." The language and the tone was perfectly appropriate for the subject matter, and the question. I didn't see Betsy walk out. (I highly recommend the talk to anyone who didn't hear it. It has gone out to the conference participants who ordered it, and will soon be a product in ARI's store, if it isn't already.)
	Sunday, November 9, 2008 at 11:03:48 mst Comment ID: #66 Name: William H Stoddard E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/profile Technically, "goddamn" is not an obscenity. It's a profanity, and might be considered a blasphemy by a really strict Christian. The difference is that profanity uses religious language in a profane context for emotional emphasis, whereas obscenity refers to culturally tabooed parts or functions of the human body. My two main aesthetic objections to both are, first, that they're used uncreatively (not just that the terms themselves are repeated, but that the speech that contains them tends to be repetitious and unexpressive), and second, that their habitual (over)use takes away much of their emotional impact. Keeping their use rare maintains their emotional charge. But this is a question of decorum for me (or what my linguist friend would call "register") and not one of ethics.
	Sunday, November 9, 2008 at 12:38:19 mst Comment ID: #67 Name: Monica E-mail: monicabeth10(at)gmail.com ""I stopped paying attention to Diana when she..." "I REALLY stopped paying any attention to her when..." "I started extremely ignoring her blog after..." "I blocked her site from appearing in my browser when I read on her blog that..." "Lemme get back to you on that, I'm combing her site for some more evidence of her..."" Indeed. Who the hell has time for this crap? One almost feels sorry for them. The particular thread Diana links to just on its own is reminiscent of a petty discussion of a group of seventh grade girls who really need to grow up.
	Sunday, November 9, 2008 at 21:17:16 mst Comment ID: #68 Name: Chris Cathcart E-mail: cathcacr(at)gmail.com URL: http://chriscathcart.blogspot.com For the prudes (NSFW and funny): http://www.headostate.com/
	Monday, November 10, 2008 at 9:27:35 mst Comment ID: #69 Name: Dana H. My wife and I cleaned up our mouths big time when our then two-year-old son starting dropping F-bombs. Somehow, there's something very unappealing about a child that small saying, "Oh, fuck!" And we realized that maybe we were overusing the word a wee bit. Nowadays, hearing our substitute swear words, you'd get the idea that we're devout Christians -- "Oh my goodness," "What the heck?", etc. (We have automatized this to the point that we keep it up even when around just adults.) Yet there's still a bit of forbidden fruit in it for our son. He thinks "What the heck?" is hilarious. I find it amusing that I use less profanity now than at any time in my life since I was about 6.
	Monday, November 10, 2008 at 9:34:10 mst Comment ID: #70 Name: Per-Olof Samuelsson E-mail: per-olof.samuelsson(at)swipnet.se URL: http://www.nattvakt.com I'd like to make a really nit-picking comment here: I've never heard Ayn Rand use the expression "son of a bitch". She used the abbreviation "SOB"!
	Monday, November 10, 2008 at 11:49:57 mst Comment ID: #71 Name: Per-Olof Samuelsson E-mail: per-olof.samuelsson(at)swipnet.se URL: http://www.nattvakt.com New-Be: "I think Objectivism is like sailing at sea. If you get your bearing wrong, you could end up hundreds of miles off course (if not worse)." I like this comment! KPO'M: "I'd rather be right than be an 'Objectivist.' Our goal should be to find the truth, and not to find out what Ayn Rand would have thought. While they are often the same, they aren't necessarily so." I like this comment too!
Post Your Comment
Name or Handle: E-mail: URL:   Remember Me   Comment:   No HTML is allowed. URLs will be automatically converted into clickable links. Commenters are welcome to clearly state their own views, as well as to criticize opposing views and arguments. Unjust personal attacks are not welcome. The NoodleFood comments are not a general discussion board. Do not post random questions or comments, except on the designated "open threads" posted on Wednesdays and Sundays. To weed out spammers: 1 plus 5 equals 4251777773803406546