[Long overdue and finally ripe:] Critique of Homosexuality.

It could have been written only yesterday. Down* to the opening sentence.

*I use this idiom “Down” not to signify that its aforementioned relevance ENDS at the first sentence, but rather that it includes even this introductory part of the analysis.

“I have come to terms with the fact that I did not perform my first attempt at stand-up on Thursday, yesterday.

My present restlessness must be the enciting force for this regret. Its true direction must be towards the future, not the past; in the absence of a critical external party it is difficult to find practical value in reflections upon the past, outside of (mere*) utility towards the future.

*?

At first I blamed myself.

Then I blamed my parents, not as an alternative but by extension. Blame is inevitable, and blame of self invariably produces blame of others.

Action and revision depend upon exercise of Will, and for that to be justified the others must be blamed.

Blaming the coaching staff at Palomar helped to alleviate the tension. That way, it was not my fault that I chose to attend. The means of attendance justified the unpredictable ENDS of wasting my time.

In truth, though I have taken pains to reform my parents’ behaviour, insisting that they do not SURVEILL me, I cannot pretend, sado-masochistically, that THAT power conflict, proven Absurd by their satisfaction with my purely SYMBOLIC attendancy, was the solitary cause for the time spent in college. Had I INTENDED, deeply, to per-

form, impressing those lucrative girls with first my boisterous flirtation and then tempting them to watch my set, learning whom among them was a participant and selectively signing my name just prior to hers, strategically, upon the sign-in list – I would have done so. Appeal to ability is the surest cure for a regret; rather than bewailing what I COULD have done, I can simply use the FACT that I had that ability un-consciously to attest that an OTHER impetus, equally under the surface, had fore-stalled me.

I have labored to honor my introversion. I was not yet Certain that the stand-up invitation was not a Temptation. Did that render the cat-like Blondie (not Alanna, but nameless) a temptation? Per chance.

The question seems to hinge upon this: Is the Unconscious one’s friend? Or one’s foe?

Alanna shall return.

I know it.

Dm.A.A.

Is sexuality a right?

If not, or it is ONLY a right insofar as it is an unrequited urge, then why bother to defend it?

The province of the Strong:

If *I* am entitled to enjoy the pleasures of the flesh, what is it to say others are not?

But in FACT this is merely a way to defend one’s own Arbitrary Emotivism by seeking solidarity with a tokenized minority.

Of course, the struggle to develop a private relation to sex, ethically, is unheard of in a community of feminists and a-males.

What guarantee is there that such an enterprise would accommodate homosexuality?

Much love is self-love.

Homosexuality is narcissistic.

‘Homo’ = ‘Same = Self.

The proper function of sexuality is to under-stand the Other.

This will cure emotivism.

The Other cultivates Com-Passion.

The emotion of Jealousy stands as Evidence that we as human beings* have vested interests in the private lives of Others.                                                     Dm.A.A.

The question arises:

Is the other man an Other, if the jealous person is all so a male? Or is only the female on Other? Logic would find comfort in confining Other-ness to gender. But in fact the other man IS an Other. Yet he is not an Other from the per-spective of Sex. Why?

The function of sex is to understand the Other gender. This is no taut-ology. Even if we did not establish the man as Other, as we are tempted to in order to separate him from the woman, the argument would stand. The CONCLUSION – that sex must be a meeting of opposing genders, for it is a function OF gender,– does not DEPEND upon the establishment of the male as an Other. The latter depends upon the former as a Premise, but since that premise does not depend upon this fact in order that it may be a Conclusion, the reasoning is not even circular, or, at worst, it is not EXCLUSIVELY so.

One is tempted to combine the Otherness of both the woman and the man into one fact, so that the fact that the Conclusion depends upon is no different from the fact that uses the Conclusion as a premise…

But we can only do this by treating Otherness as a phenomenological fact.

And when we acknowledge that this Otherness only occurs in the Other gender, where sexuality is concerned, by virtue of the same phenomenological episteme, we have no right to complain about the contradiction. Our conclusion looms as a premise the closer it approaches. Besides that, the fact stands unequivocally and ubiquitously: Choosing same-sex partners over partners of the opposite sex is a prioritization of Self OVER Other, whereas passing judgement of both sexes treats them equally.

Neither is this judgement an attempt to sub-sume the Other to the Self, for jealousy hurts.

And this is chiefly triggered when the Other has failed to HONOR the Otherness of the judging subject.

One might ask: Why do I bother to even DEVELOP an ethic so stringent?

But I assure you:

Those who would laugh at me are precisely those men who would commit crimes of jealousy. And I CHALLENGE you, reader, to explain how THEIR debauchery is just-ified by MY saintliness and trust.                                                  Dm.A.A.