Post a response:
|
If there's any resource on the subject that avoids the ideological spin informing modern Western pedo hysteria, it's GLTTA. The "spin" there lies in the amazing diversity of facts and thoughts it collects. For example, it's only since the day-before yesterday that "gay" was in and boy love out in the Western world. The GLTTA archives end up affirming this simply by presenting all the stories of BL that it can. It is tremendously catholic in its selection of texts – it doesn't shy away from material that can make boy love look pretty unsavory, especially in the vast history of slavery in the classical world. In fact, if you were to write up a decent argument that GLTTA was unfairly ideologically biased, GLTTA would put your essay up on its site. I would love to see it. Sure GLTTA is "biased" – but nothing isn't in some way. It's an incredibly sober response to intoxicated discourses on human sexuality and anthropology that are transparently (and probably) hopelessly biased. It's not a political movement or philosophical school or ideological training camp. It's more like a library of banned books. To that extent that it is ideological, its ideology lies in opposition to the censorship. But I see nothing insidious in that. Anyway, among the many facts manifested there is the fact that pederasty is, indeed, compatible with heterosexual marriage. Heck, since long before GLTTA, I've known several happily married BLs in my own personal life, all of whom have raised children @ndash; plus a few others who go for both boys and women (none of whom consider themselves gay). It is very difficult, when confronted with the historical and cross-cultural record, to deny that boy love tends to be very common, if not pervasive, in any society that even vaguely tolerates it. (And there's no evidence to suggest that marriage and heterosexuality suffer for that tolerance, as there would be if there were some trade-off.) On a personal note: As horrible as the problem is in the modern Western world, there's a sense in which my problem not that I like boys, but that I don't like women well enough to have a satisfying romantic and sexual relationship with one. But if I did like women more I would be no "less" a boy lover. And if, like Bradford (maybe), I did not feel sadness at lacking a wife and children, it would hardly count as evidence for some fundamental incompatibility. You don't need to love only boys to be a boy lover any more than you need to eat only cheese to be a cheese lover. But damn I love cheese. Speaking of E. E. Bradford, where can we learn more about him? Here's the really cool web site where I first discovered him: https://greek-love.com/index.php/component/finder/search?q=bradford&Itemid=2450 (Thank you for reminding us of him: a fascinating man, and not a bad poet!) |