Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too

It's obvious to us all that you did. There is not a shortage of explanations for it. One primary one is that it emerged as a re-appropration of reproductive machinery (in the brain and of course also sexual organs) to serve purposes of male-male and female-female bonding.

In many species, there are members who contribute to reproduction on the big picture (sustainment and expansion of the whole population) rather than on an individual level. Think of worker bees, for example. If you have individuals contributing on this level, their reproductive functions are free to be applied to whatever they work well for. One thing they are good at is creating intimacy, strengthening trust, underlining emotional connections . . .

But, even if none of this were true, why on earth should we take the evolutionary functions of parts of our being to limit us as to what we use them for? Teeth evolved for breaking apart food, but primitive humans used their teeth as a general tool -- not just for food, but for helping to make tools and manipulate other things. Almost surely, that kind of flexibility in behavior played a central part in making us how successful we are.

However, your views/opinions/homophobia have nothing to do with political correctness. You've basically said so yourself without realizing it apparently. Political correctness just gives you a "deflector" that you can spend your time talking about rather than focusing on the fact that you just flat out don't like gays and find them to be freaks. Don't dress up your bias, because it makes you look even more pathetic.

Bravo!!


Absolutely.
Thanks for being so flexible on it -- and very well said.

Look.
Suppose he meant something like contentious (which I think he did), but just happened to say controversial (which will do just fine).

You're quibbling about vocabulary.

I haven't read most of what's been said about this here (and don't care to), but, speaking as someone who's very schooled and very interested in biology, evolution, genetics, and sexuality, I can tell you that it's a mistake to look at sexuality only in terms of reproduction and assume that's its whole story.

And BTW I'm also speaking as someone who used to look at it essentially that way.

P.S. Charleslang's above post covers a big part of the counterargument extremely well.

You equate the word "aberrant" with freaks and monsters?
I find that laughingly ridiculous.

Yes, I spent a whole paragraph on it. Very insightful.

Yes, but we are talking about humans - not worker bees. If you want to talk about the many animals that change their sexes as needed, hive mentality, etc - that's okay, but they don't apply.
Your theory on the bonding sounds interesting, but doesn't appear to be essential to a species' survival - who proposed this theory?
Using teeth for things they weren't designed for is definately benificial if it gives an edge, but is still not a normal usage of them. It doesn't matter how beneficial my elbow is as a paintbrush, it wasn't designed to be used that way - therfore it's an abnormal usage.
I'm not saying you shouldn't use your elbow or teeth for operating vending machines, I'm just saying it's not normal.

In the end - everyone has their own opinions on the matter, and nobody is going to have their mind changed over any of it. It was never my intention to do so. So easy to get off track because statements not readily agreed-upon have to be dissected and argued over. By the time it's done, their applicability has lost some of their immediacy and charm, if they ever had any.

Everyone will justify their own actions, no matter what they are - even Pletnev.

I didn't mention changing sexes or 'hive mentality', nor do I know what that even means. And if you want an example from humans, take nuns, or priests or vestal virgins in ancient Rome (or old folks generally). In these cases the reproductive systems are available for other uses (unfortunately in all except the last case they're mostly just wasted instead of finding another use).



And being essential to survival is what makes something normal? You mean like eating meat? Or bowling? Or surfing?



The only reason these applications sound silly is because we have other better ways to do these things.

What churches do within their denominations is their business since they are effectively private clubs with private rules. But there is no proposal by any group or politician in the USA that promotes the idea that any priest should be penalized for refusing to perform a same-sex marriage. To suggest otherwise is to traffic in rumors.

It's a gloomy picture of things. Maybe it's just time for a rest.

True, there is no proposal at least that I've heard of. But it had to be made explicit - including through new legislation - that clergy could refuse in these cases legally, since anti-discrimination legislation already on the books, combined with newly legal homosexual unions, left open a possibility of pursuing prosecution.

I think the attitudes shown by at least one poster on this board ("cruel but fair") indicate that some legal challenge would have been made otherwise.

The government should get out of the marriage business where it has no compelling interest. Excepting underage minors who are subject to sexual abuse, the government has no persuasive argument to nullify or legally forbid the recognition of any personal union, straight or gay. Who would want their choice of a spouse to be subject to the condescending approval or
condemnation of any mere politician or bureaucrat?

Local city halls should register civil unions to both heterosexual and homosexual couples. Religious marriages may be left to any religious organization to perform as they please, but those unions should not have any legal hierarchy over civil unions.

Marriage as an "intellectual property right"? Traditionally, marriage has governed the right of a man's control over a woman the children they create, social standing, and the rights of inheritance. To quote Tina Turner, "What's love got to do with it?"

Black Americans (slaves) in America were forbidden to marry for five hundred years (the Bible, regrettably, sanctions slavery in the Book of Leviticus), and right of interracial couples to marry has been recognized only since 1967!

The entire marriage argument is largely as mask for the real issue: who gets the sinister thrill of being able to control the levers of power over other citizens.

The entire Pletnev situation is tragic from every perspective. I have no idea about Pletnev's sexual preferences (nor do I care, actually), or the veracity of the charges leveled against him, so I choose not to proffer speculation about that. The whole sordid matter will unfold in the Thailand courts (heaven only knows what their "due process" consists of...)and we will all read about it in the press.

On a note previously struck in this particular thread - there is a defensive posture by some to rebuff the claim that many pianist are somewhat "effeminate".

I have had many male piano students through the years who were comparatively effeminate (effeminate in comparison to, say, James Cagney). Why is being effeminate considered a bad thing? Perhaps the prejudice lies in the perception of power. Effeminacy is associated with women, and traditionally women have had no power. Id est, anything "effeminate" or female-like is "bad" because it is in a lesser power position.

We are no longer in stone age or even in the Age of Bronze, so can we move the discussion of human value to a new level not based solely on idolization of brute physical power?

So what if Chopin was rather effeminate, and not stomping around like Theodore Roosevelt? Some men are effeminate. So what of it? What's the problem? Why should we value them less?

Zeroing in more specifically on the entire homosexuals-at-the-keyboard issue: If there were no homosexuals in the arts there would be no Broadway, no Hollywood, and the classical music scene would be reduced in half at a minimum. It is true that there is a preponderance of gays in the arts, and apparently this has always been the case.


Horowitz made no secret of his preference for men and neither did Earl Wild. A new biography of Richter discusses his homosexuality. I don't feel it is my place to 'out' other pianists, but if you are inclined to do so, type the name of the top concert pianists of the past fifty years into Google along with the word "gay" or "homosexual" and note how many legitimate books and news articles appear on screen addressing the matter. You may find the results surprising.

Here's what I've discovered... those who argue the loudest against homosexuality, usually have something to hide, either consciously or subconsciously.

The angrier and louder the rhetoric, the more those spewing it back themselves into their own dark hole - so to speak.

Brilliant and spot on!

It's easy to justify a position - just watch cable news! What's far more difficult is to explore a position, to search for an understanding instead of passing judgment or picking a side.

If there's one thing I don't like about political and social discourse in the United States, it's that everyone thinks that the way to tackle an issue is:

1) Pick a side (based on whatever...political leanings, ideological theories, religious principles, etc...)
2) Become an advocate
3) Defend it
4) Attack the opposition

That's fine for football, but I don't see much social or civic progress coming out of it.

Instead of picking sides, I wish people would explore the issues a little more fully. Take this thread for example - has anyone looked into the demographics of pedophiliacs? Are pedophiliacs more likely to be involved in the arts? Homosexual? Russian? Pianists?

Has there been an update on the case?

There's this...

And this...

And this...

And has anyone bothered to check in to how the Thai legal system works? What kind of due process is there? What kind of evidence is there? We've heard rumors of pictures, which Pletnev admits, but he also says somewhere the pictures don't depict anything prurient, so?

I plan on following the case and posting updates. I count myself among those who enjoy his recordings. If he's innocent, I sincerely hope he continues to record and enjoy his successful career. If not, I hope they lock him up and use his money to combat child prostitution in Thailand. And regardless, I hope everyone takes something away from our discussion of the issues besides having simply picked and argued a side.

Let's learn a little.

BTW, it just so happens that Stephen Hough (a homosexual pianist who converted to catholicism; how "abnormal" is that?!!) has a recent entry in his blog that comments on issues similar to those at hand in this thread.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/cultur...eather-balls-sideburns-and-jeffrey-john/

Even speaking as someone 'on your side' (and a shrink, FWIW), IMO that's a tough statement to support or defend. Sure, there are many instances where it's true (include some famous ones in recent years), but as a broad statement......I don't see how you or anyone can assert that, except as a speculation.