Post a response:
|
Bisexuality, in the modern day, is a far more common occurrence than exclusive homosexuality. It's been over two decades since I've had any direct interaction with a gay community -- but I still find this claim unbelievable. As in, gobsmackingly so. By "bisexual", you're not referring to some opportunistic experimentation or fooling around? You mean most gay men are also capable of pursuing an attractive female and forming a sexual relationship? Not just capable, but do so? I’m not overly interested in today’s carry-on, but I’m sure I would have read something about this extraordinary development. I’d see it as an excellent development, but it wouldn’t have much impact on what I’m talking about. I thought monogamous marriage and raising kids was today’s gay ideal? The end-goal is to replace this with sterile trannies (as opposed to the traditional, very fruitful Shamanic-type trannies), although that might be proving a rather disastrous bridge too far. No, you haven’t made a moral case against pederasty, but you want to dissolve the moral case for it. You ignore the categorical difference. A man forming a relationship with a youth, late-teens/early-twenties, is completely different to a man forming a relationship with a boy at the start of adolescence. I can certainly appreciate the beauty of a young man still possessing important boyish qualities. But I found both the sex and potential relationship a poor substitute, not remotely the real thing. To quote the Source [Camille Paglia]: Certain boys, especially blondes, seem to carry adolescent beauty into adulthood. They form an enduring class of homosexual taste that I call the Billy Budd topos, fresh, active, and ephebic. But, as with your Uranians, you have to bear in mind that this is happening at a time Western cultural forces were creating the modern gay. Have you read Ronald Trumbach? He investigates the development of the modern gay from the preceding traditional pederastic model of homo activity. Starts with the early 1700’s Molly-house culture in London (and Paris and Amsterdam, I think, from hazy memory), and winds it way down to the current dreary dead-end. It was always about trying to isolate the homo-impulse from decent society. They’ve had a good run, but it’s unnatural and won’t go on past the West’s time of dominance. Even in Renaissance Florence, when Savonarola briefly put the boys off-limits, the recorded age of boys involved in homosex went up toward the late teens. Once Sav got his just desserts, a local dignitary exclaimed with joy, Now we can get back to buggering boys! (or something similar). Once we see off the current fulminating hysterics, the same will occur. Although I would happily see that occur in a much more strict, decorous, deliberately mentor-oriented way. As the wonderful Joe Orton said: I have fucked the arses off aging queens quite easily, but found a beautiful young boy often too difficult to come, because I loved him too much. None of these modern shenanigans argue against what exists in the broader historical, anthropological and zoological record. Male sexuality is not purely the result of cultural forces, it is governed by important biological foundations, but it can obviously develop all sorts of weird and wonderful variations within those limits. Gayness is a striking example (while remembering the important fact that it’s a small minority practice). I have no problem agreeing that gay men of today, if age of consent was 12yo, and no great stigma attached, would quite enjoy sex with younger boys. Sad to have to say, but, thank God they didn’t get the chance. Pederasty is certainly severely mismatched with our current culture. Boys in the bathhouses? Boys on Grindr? No, I’ll side with the haters on that one. |