Homosexuality (only for the trivia)
by tdaxp ~ January 11th, 2005
“I thought I would just make 3 unfounded points with a rainbow (no irony intended) summary point at the end, but I found I had too much to say,” by “Aaron,” tdaxp, http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2005/01/10/denormalization.html, 11 January 2005.
Free from the constraints of the practical, I give a rambling reply to Aaron’s well-thought-out post.
“I thought I would just make 3 unfounded points with a rainbow (no irony intended) summary point at the end, but I found I had too much to say.
1. Few people have ever chosen to be gay.
– A number would like not to be, I’m sure, but usually from societal pressure. Much like you can’t force yourself to be attracted to a man, homosexuals cannot force themselves to be “normal” and be attracted to a woman. I challenge you to find me evidence to the contrary, and the Cato Institute and National Review don’t count. I’ve read accounts of the anguish faced by homosexuals who are attempting to “normalize” themselves, whether through counseling or faith. The Mormons will even find you a wife to help you get back to being “normal.” A fair number of these accounts end with suicide. Homosexuality is not a choice. The anguish caused by homosexuality is the fault of intolerant society. Substitute “black” or “mentally disabled” or “short” into your arguments and hear how disgusting you sound.
I agree that few males have chosen to be homosexual. As far as I know National Review has never published an articles to the contrary, and CATO’s socially libertarianism would make them unlikely to pursue one. Likewise, few people have chosen not to be homosexual.
Homosexual anguish has several causes. Social incompatibility is not the least among them, but others are clear too. All-male circles have less impulse-control than all-female or mixed circles. So male homosexuals can be expected to engage in more actions with less forethought than others. Related to this is their status as disease vectors. In other words, dumb decisions makes death makes people sad.
“Black” cannot be substituted because blackness does not determine behavior.
“Mentally disabled” is a status of injury. Mental disability overwhelmingly affects behavior. It is an extremely wide category, but its fair to say that a good portion of the anguish the mentally disabled, or any disabled, feel is because they are disabled. That is, because of real concrete disabilities that prevent them from pursuing their dreams.
“Short” is ambiguous. Midgets clearly are physically disabled, while the shorter-than-average or just shorter-than-average.
So to substitute with the sentence, “Homosexuality shall be eliminated”
Substituting “blacks” makes the sentence bizarre and implies genocide or at the very least vast biological interference. Substituting “mentally disability” makes the sentence hopeful — if all the sick were cured, and illness became preventable, we would live in a happier world. Substituting “shortness” is just weird.
2. Homosexuality is optional for a society.
– For a society perhaps, but not for an individual. However, there are other entirely optional things to society that I don’t see you rallying against. Let me list them:
– Biased news.
– Alcohol.
– Faith (even if it’s only for the trivia).
I agree that a homosexual individual would be hard-pressed to call his status “optional.” But more importantly…
Biased news and propoganda have existed in every society ever. Even if objectivity were possible, there are real society forces that warp news to make it pleasing to certain powers. No society has ever escaped this. This is as good as “proof” that biased news will always exist as is possible.
Alcohol is one of many drugs. Perhaps knowledge of fermentation can be supressed. But what society has been free of artificial stimulation? From alcohol to tobacco to marijuana to opium to incense stimulants worm there way in.
Faith comes from a Greek word that means “trust.” In Modern English it means “Faith in a higher order.” Whether God, the laws of nature, or History, faith seems inescapable.
When I say “homosexuality is optional” I do not mean “homosexuality can be expunged to create a virtuous society.” I mean “homosexuality has not existed in the vast majority of societies in human history.” Which leads to…
3. Gays have been persecuted a great deal throughout history. It’s not passed on as a genetic trait (that I’ve seen proven, anywhere). Natural selection should have taken care of it by now if it were. Again, few people have chosen to be gay and a large number would rather they weren’t.
It seems likely that some combination of genetics and socialization leads to homosexuality. I have no evidence — it just sounds right. But more substantively…
Gays have not been persecuted a great deal throughout history. If they were, we would see the ordinances of persecution. We would see somewhere the prohibitions. We would see something better than the weird, oddly-worded, and shellfish-strewn wreckages in Leviticus.
This is what I meant by “homosexuality is optional.” That it mostly does not exist.
Later, abbreviating some…
Heterosexuals spread disease as easily as homosexuals. The stigma that they’re carriers for HIV/AIDs is a holdover from the 80s, when the disease was misunderstood. The same measure of protection a heterosexual takes can prevent a homosexual from catching / spreading disease. Statistics might support your arguments,
Ok. So what I write is not a relic from the 1980s. Its statistics. The better AIDS is understood, the more the impact of homosexuals as vectors is known. One can argue that this classification is unfair, but its a conclusion that comes from the facts.
but they’d also support the following statements: blacks are criminals, young people are bad drivers, the Pope is Catholic.
If you correct for income, population size, and single-parenting, do you see more black criminals than white criminals? No. Because race does not change behavior.
If you correct for income, population size, and single-parenting, do you see more young bad drivers than middle aged bad drivers? Of course. Because young people have less impulse control and less fear than middle aged drivers. Youth is always everywhere a time of less control.
Statistics show post-correction differences between youth and non-youth and homosexuals and non-homosexuals because those categories matter. Such differences dissappear for blacks because race does not.
There are those that glorify the lifestyle and seek attention and perhaps some are driven to it by an out of control libido. For them, homosexuality may be a choice. But for the young man who hides something he cannot control, who fears persecution from an intolerant family and society, who tries to find solace in therapy or faith, only to be let down, I think the “opportunity cost” of homosexuality should have driven him to normalcy by now. So why did he kill himself rather than get married, raise 2.5 children, and buy a little white house out in the suburbs?”
Homosexuality, like first language, seems to be determined in childhood. The purpose of denormalization is prevention, not cure.
September 6th, 2006 at 12:00 am
“How closely, in your mind, would ancient Greek male-male sexuality have to resemble the homosexuality of our time in order to pass as evidence of a continuity of homosexuality from ancient times to modernity?”
In order to establish homosexuality in ancient Greece, you would need to establish male-male sexual bonding that was neither
pedophilia (man-boy)
pedastry (man-youth)
or faute-de-mieux (single-sex environments)
and give a precise reference.
“I also already pointed out the presence in ancient Greek society of men who defy the cultural norm of man-boy or man-youth sexuality by seeking sexual gratification with men more close to their own age, but curiously enough you chose to ignore this information.”
No, I addressed the information. You provided a second-hand source which discussed some contextless quotes by a comedian.
“You admit it yourself: homosexuality, in one form or the other, has been with us from the ancient times to the present. “
Pedophlia, pedastry, and faute-de-mieux have ancient providence, yes. But is this a meaningful providence for homosexuality as we know it? Do we see homosexualists embracing pedophiles, pedastrists, and prison rapists? (Well, sometimes..)
“sexuality is always automatically legitimate within any rationally acceptable ethics”
and
“Actually, the historical and cultural universality or the generality of a behaviour is not a measure of its social acceptability in any rationally acceptable ethical analysis.”
A differnet discussion, as you admit. Still, I wonder what you mean by “rational.” I am familiar with the “rationality” being used in one of two ways
1. as a synonym for “well-reasoned”
2. in reference to a bargaining game among near-peers
The first definition is banale (who would say they have bad reasons?), the second is spurious (how do the outcomes of a bargaining game give us normative guidance?). Perhaps you are using it in a third manner?
“but the presence of men in that society who were attracted to persons of their own sex despite the presence of females.”
Here is where your casual and broad use of the term “homosexual” hurts discussion. That's not the question as all, as I grant the existence of pedophiles, pedatrists, and faute-de-mieux in ancient Greece.
“I already mentioned that the article to which I provided the link includes an analysis”
Yes, you provided a second-hand source. Is there any good primary evidence?
“You wrote that “lesbian is qualitatively distinct” which I took to mean that female homosexuality, in your view, is somehow more historically continuous and transculturally constant than male homosexuality. If I interpreted your meaning correctly, I would like to hear some reasons as to why you should think this is the case.”
Lesbianism has no ancient providence of being considered sex, as sexual relationships were constructed to imply a release of seed. That is why, for example, the (generally unpleasant) Puritans executed homosexuals but not lesbians.
“”Straight-male-friendly” simply referres to the double-standard”
If by “double standard” you mean “recognition of qualitative differences between the sexes,” yes.
“Good Homosexuals” and must be referred to as “lesbians”
I haven't given any normative judgements in your discussion. You use a lot of them.
“I have personally been especially interested in the berdache or two-spirit people among the North-American Indians.”
Clever use of both terms, as I assume you are aware that berdache means “male prostitute.” There are whores in many all-male bonds. That doesn't mean they are homosexuals. (Unless you want to claim prisons as wildly successful homosexual conversion factories which is, of course, absurd)
If, however, you are arguing for homosexuality among plains indians (that is neither pedophilic, pedastric, or faute-de-mieux) — provide an actual source. It's easy to make up a secondary source on any topic under the sun. To provide primary sources, also refered to as historical evidence, is a bit harder. Especially for something that isn't there.
The androphile site you mention doesn't seem to make a distinction between pedastry and homosexuality.
Curtis,
I apologize for the difficulty you are having with blogspirit's spam filter. Can you send your comment directly to me? I will make sure it is posted.
September 5th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Nope. Must be something else in my comment. God only knows. Well, matti, since the links posted, I'll suggest the second link as an interesting argument, even if the writer made a few silly claims. As for everything else in my long comment, to hell with it until Dan fixes his crappy blog programming. I've tried too many times to leave my comment, already.
January 11th, 2005 at 12:00 am
Awesome blog and discussion, tdaxp!! I love the phrase : ” weird, oddly-worded, and shellfish-strewn wreckages in Leviticus.”
I was giggling for 10 minutes. LOL Thanks
September 5th, 2006 at 12:00 am
If you think you can explain homosexuality (by which I presume you mean MALE homosexuality) away with some vulgarised social constructionist theoreticising, then think again. You cannot prove the historical nonexistense of something of which there are historical examples. There were men extant prior to the supposed “birth” of homosexuality who systematically preferred other men as sexual partners and, what is more, male-male sexuality was everything but equated or integrated with male-female sexuality. If Plato could articulate a myth of origins for male-male and male-female desire in his Symposium explaining the reason why (1) some people are drawn towards the opposite sex while (2) others prefer their own, there most certainly was, to use your own words, “knowledge of homosexuality.” No, there were no “homosexuals” then in the sense that we understand the expression, but there certainly were men then as there are now who desire men (and not only, if at all, boys) and actively pursue sexual contacts with other men (and not only, if at all, boys).
September 5th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Wow — neat to see this discussion pick up again after 20 months!
tfreridge — glad you liked the humor
matti –
“If you think you can explain homosexuality (by which I presume you mean MALE homosexuality)”
Yes, as lesbian is qualitatively distinct.
“You cannot prove the historical nonexistence of something of which there are historical examples.”
Such as?
This isn't an empty question. Curtis of Phatic Communion, [1] who I admire very much, tried to provide some but could not find examples (outside of pedophilia, pedastry, and samesex environments) that show an old providence. References to “ancient China,” for instance, typically involve the Qing dynasty, which is the most recent of the Imperial Dynasties of that country.
I've heard the rhetoric before, but I would be very grateful for solid examples.
[1] http://www.phaticcommunion.com/archives/2006/06/homosexualism_v.php
September 5th, 2006 at 12:00 am
You neglected to answer my question. If it was possible for a philosopher of the ancient world to formulate a theory about why some people are “that way” (as opposed to some other), how is it possible to assert with a straight face, as you appear to do, that nothing even remotely similar to the contemporary hetero-homo divide existed prior to modern times? What about similar attempts at categorising sexuality found in other cultures? If there was no essential difference perceived between same-sex and opposite-sex practices prior to modern times, why do we find religious meanings and special social status attached to same-sex relationships among the Native Americans or in medieval India and Arabia?
Another issue altogether is this: from what point of view is the existence or nonexistence of a 1-to-1 equivalence between ancient/medieval/pre-industrial/whatever forms of male-male sexuality and modern male-male sexualities relevant in the first place? If you don't find a perfect match or a striking historical continuity, is it somehow that much easier to question the moral legitimacy of contemporary homosexualities? Is this yet another attempt at evading the impossible task of presenting a rational argument for the categorical condemnation of male-male sexuality? You should know that any attempt to draw authority for such a totalising prohibition from history is as futile as trying to derive moral principles from the assumption of a natural moral law.
There are continuities and discontinuities between historical and contemporary conceptualisations of male-male desire and sexual practice. Today, there are obviously men who desire boys and young men as there were in the ancient times and there were in the ancient times men who desired other men as there are such men now. For examples of both ancient man-man sexuality and the difficulties they pose for simplistic social constructionist explanations, I suggest you consult this article by philosopher John Thorp (see below). He concludes his analysis of the differences and similarities perceived in ancient and modern understandings of male homosexuality by saying that, in the light of the undeniable presence in ancient Greek society of a socially stigmatices minority of adult male couples and Aristophanes's discussion of male-male desire as a deep physical attraction in Plato's Symposium, the Greek imagination about sexual categories comes very close to our own.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/thorp.html
By the way, I find your suggestion that the female homosexual or, to be more straight-male-friendly, the “lesbian,” has existed throughout the ages as a distinct type of sexual person highly amusing. Even the “heterosexual” is not an ahistorical and natural category.
September 5th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Matti,
Apologies for not being more precise.
“If it was possible for a philosopher of the ancient world to formulate a theory about why some people are “that way” (as opposed to some other), how is it possible to assert with a straight face, as you appear to do, that nothing even remotely similar to the contemporary hetero-homo divide existed prior to modern times?”
Let me rephrase my previous statements: pedophilia, pedastry, and sexual relations in unisexial environments have been with us since antiquity. All of these are more than “remotely similar” to much of modern “homosexualithy.” If you wish to establish the antiquity of homosexuality as we know it, you must find references to homosexuality as we know it in ancient literature.
“why do we find religious meanings and special social status attached to same-sex relationships among the Native Americans “
What is your reference for this? (I have heard similar claims before, but they are claims of no providence — someone just saying something, in other words, without outside evidence.)
“or in medieval India and Arabia?”
Again, I will ask for references.
“Another issue altogether is this: from what point of view is the existence or nonexistence of a 1-to-1 equivalence between ancient/medieval/pre-industrial/whatever forms of male-male sexuality and modern male-male sexualities relevant in the first place? I”
I'm not sure what you mean by a 1-to-1 equivalence.
“If you don't find a perfect match or a striking historical continuity, is it somehow that much easier to question the moral legitimacy of contemporary homosexualities?”
Obviously the same question can be turned back — is it that much easier to defend teh moral legitimacy of contemporary homosexuals by showing it existed previously?
To me, the question of ancient providence relates to what degree homosexuality is part of a “human nature” developmental program, and thus how it should be dealt with socially. That something is universally widespread is doubtless important to how it should be dealt with.
“in the light of the undeniable presence in ancient Greek society of a socially stigmatices minority of adult male couples and Aristophanes's discussion of male-male desire as a deep physical attraction in Plato's Symposium, the Greek imagination about sexual categories comes very close to our own.”
Your second-hand citation of an ancient comedian from a misogynic culture who concludes that women are socially inferior is strange, as it doesn't imply anything than misogynists love to joke about how worthless women are.
“By the way, I find your suggestion that the female homosexual or, to be more straight-male-friendly, the “lesbian,” has existed throughout the ages as a distinct type of sexual person highly amusing. Even the “heterosexual” is not an ahistorical and natural category.”
I don't understand this paragraph. Could you rephrase?
September 5th, 2006 at 12:00 am
“Let me rephrase my previous statements: pedophilia, pedastry, and sexual relations in unisexial environments have been with us since antiquity. All of these are more than “remotely similar” to much of modern “homosexualithy.” If you wish to establish the antiquity of homosexuality as we know it, you must find references to homosexuality as we know it in ancient literature.”
How closely, in your mind, would ancient Greek male-male sexuality have to resemble the homosexuality of our time in order to pass as evidence of a continuity of homosexuality from ancient times to modernity? This question is all the more relevant due to the fact that there is in fact no specific “modern homosexual” that could be easily contrasted with some radically different variant found in ancient times. I also already pointed out the presence in ancient Greek society of men who defy the cultural norm of man-boy or man-youth sexuality by seeking sexual gratification with men more close to their own age, but curiously enough you chose to ignore this information.
And yet, even if there were no documented incidences of adult male couples in ancient times, what is to stop us from concluding that the paederastic homosexuality and the homosexuality that occurred in unisex environments establishes a stage in a developmental line of Western homosexuality from antiquity to the present? You admit it yourself: homosexuality, in one form or the other, has been with us from the ancient times to the present. What is more, there is evidence of the man-man variety of which I already made mention, albeit on deaf ears as it seems.
“Obviously the same question can be turned back — is it that much easier to defend teh moral legitimacy of contemporary homosexuals by showing it existed previously?”
Luckily, those who are homosexually inclined do not need to draw support for the legitimacy of their sexuality from historical data because their sexuality is always automatically legitimate within any rationally acceptable ethics due to the fact that it does not constitute a violation of the individual autonomy of other human beings.
“To me, the question of ancient providence relates to what degree homosexuality is part of a “human nature” developmental program, and thus how it should be dealt with socially. That something is universally widespread is doubtless important to how it should be dealt with.”
Actually, the historical and cultural universality or the generality of a behaviour is not a measure of its social acceptability in any rationally acceptable ethical analysis. In a rational ethics, you would need to indicate that a sexual union between two men, for instance, is of some objectively detrimental consequence to someone outside the relationship who is not willing to accept the consequence. If you cannot indicate such an effect inherent in the behaviour under scrutiny, you are without a rationally acceptable argument. Historicalness or generality, or indeed some assumed “human nature,” has nothing whatever to do with it.
“Your second-hand citation of an ancient comedian from a misogynic culture who concludes that women are socially inferior is strange, as it doesn't imply anything than misogynists love to joke about how worthless women are.”
First, the issue at hand here is not whether ancient Greece was the most advanced of societies in terms of gender equality but the presence of men in that society who were attracted to persons of their own sex despite the presence of females. Any reference to misogyny does not really further your argument at all because it does not change the fundamental fact that sexual affection between males was within the sphere of cultural intelligibility in ancient Greece. Second, I already mentioned that the article to which I provided the link includes an analysis of documents outside the Symposium which explicitly discuss public debates about the nature of male-male sexuality and, more specifically, debates about what varieties of male-male sexuality should be socially accepted. Thorp makes the important observation, disasterous in its ramifications for any simplistic constructionist analysis, that one of the forms of male-male sexuality known to the ancient Greeks was the man-man variety.
“I don't understand this paragraph. Could you rephrase?”
You wrote that “lesbian is qualitatively distinct” which I took to mean that female homosexuality, in your view, is somehow more historically continuous and transculturally constant than male homosexuality. If I interpreted your meaning correctly, I would like to hear some reasons as to why you should think this is the case. “Straight-male-friendly” simply referres to the double-standard present in male heterosexual attitudes to homosexuality according to which homosexual women are the “Good Homosexuals” and must be referred to as “lesbians” in order not be defile them with the dirty name of “homosexual” (which would, by extension, also taint male heterosexuals because the “lesbian” is such an integral part of their erotic repertoire).
Oh, I almost forgot, you mentioned that you have heard about forms of same-sex sexuality in Native American tribes and in non-Western cultures of the medieval times. There is an extensive anthropological literature on this, I have personally been especially interested in the berdache or two-spirit people among the North-American Indians. While some social constructionist have argued that the modern formulation of homosexuality as the “androgyny of the soul” has no precedent in other cultures or times, the Indians actually put this idea into practice by establishing the role of the two-spirit, one who is both a male and a female within the same person. There is much information about this and other topics related to historical homosexuality at http://androphile.org/.
September 5th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Well, I've tried commenting on this post, but no comment is left. I keep getting sent back to the main page of tdaxp. This blog software sucks big time.
September 5th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Hmm, let's see if it's links keeping me from being able to post what I'd like to comment:
[1] http://www.phaticcommunion.com/archives/2006/08/godwinism.php
[2] http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/social19.htm
January 11th, 2005 at 12:00 am
I have no idea as to the specific causes of homosexuality. Its prevalence in modern western society gives us structural clues, but nothing specific.
As late as the 1960s socially liberal private schools were arguing that their methods discouraged homosexuality, but I have seen no evidence for this. The role of British “public schools” in promoting homosexual acts is well known, as is their promotion of cruelity, hierarchicalism, and classism. However those elitist academies are clearly extremely different than modern socialized education.
January 11th, 2005 at 12:00 am
What combination of loving father and inattentive mother, or vice versa, or some awful fami-social catastrophe leads to a child becoming homosexual?
What makes one child in a family of four gay, whilst the other three prefer the opposite sex?
What makes the firstborn in one family gay and the last born in another gay? I've seen some studies that tried to corrolate birth order and sexual preference, but the results weren't statistically significant.
What did fine, upstanding parents Lynne and Dick Cheney do? Did Liz attend church more than Mary? Insane Illionois Senatorial Candidate Allan Keyes said she “engaged in selfish hedonism”.
I revel in the opportunity to point out that if homosexuality were an outlet for hypersexuality, the internet and your local adult bookstore offer a wide variety of auto-erotic stimulation. As a frequent bar-goer, I can attest to the relative simplicity to which extra-marital heterosexual intercourse can be obtained, for men and women alike. Why all the mess of maintaining a relationship, or in extreme cases, fighting state marriage laws, just to engage in delicious taboo sodomy?
This must be the fault of public schools.
September 6th, 2006 at 12:00 am
What kind of text, in your view, would constitute direct evidence of knowledge of sex between free men in the ancient world? The Symposium is a historical document depicting individuals who actually existed in the time of its birth. Thorp makes the observation that the text includes a discussion about sexuality between free men, which indicates a knowledge of the existence of sexual bonds between free men in a non-paedophilic, non-pederastic and non-single-sex context. Two such men were present in the banquet but this is not important; what is important is that the idea that a man could actively prefer persons of his own sex outside the institution of pederasty appears in a document of ancient origin. The fact is that Aristophanes has a category for men who may engage in a sexual relationship with another man at any point in their lives and who, indeed, preferred men over women. The Greeks new of such men, they discussed the social acceptability of their behaviour, they had a category for them.
In any case, I am still somewhat bemused as to the logic of your argument according to which we would need to find the modern culture of homosexuality in the ancient culture of homosexuality in order for any kind of homosexuality to be socially acceptable today. First, we cannot, for the obvious reasons, find the exact replica of the modern culture of homosexuality in ancient times, although we do find discussion of different kinds of homosexual relationship. Second, if we were to model our sexual ethics according to the criterion of unchanging historical continuity, and it so happened be that there was only evidence of continuing man-boy homosexuality and of homosexuality in single-sex environments, we would have to accept these types of male homosexual practice but reject homosexuality between adult males in a heterosexual environment. This would, in my view, be an absurd ethics and it certainly is an absurd way to see sexuality in general.
Thank you, Curtis, for your link to Norton's article. I found particularly interesting the information that ancient writers could rewrite relationships between coevals to fit the idealised model of homosexuality between man and youth. Norton also provides an interesting account of the manipulation of the age differential by social constructivist theorists who wish to make data fit their preconceived model.
September 6th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Matti,
If you believe Aristophanes' speech in The Symposium is evidence — fine. Show me that evidence. What lines? So far you have only given me a second-hand source. Unlike you, I will provide a direct reference to The Symposium [1]. In fact, unlike you, I will provide a direct quote
“TBut they who are a section of the male follow the male, and while they are young, being slices of the original man, they have affection for men and embrace them, and these are the best of boys and youths, because they have the most manly nature.”
So Plato's Aristophanes appear to say that all observed homosexual were the younger partner (the law would say “victims”) of pedophiles or pedastrists.
If you do not like such conclusions, then do not talk of texts that make those conclusions.
“we would need to find the modern culture of homosexuality in the ancient culture of homosexuality in order for any kind of homosexuality to be socially acceptable today.”
Where have I said this?
[1] http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/sym.htm
September 6th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Have you ever wondered what made the homosexual relationships between men and youths possible, psychologally, in the ancient times without the presence of a homosexual desire? Heterosexual desire? What about the homosexual relationships between men in the single-sex environments of which you speak? Free men also sought the company of slave men in order to have sex with them. Why was this I wonder? Could it be because of a desire that went beyond the socially accepted form of pederasty?
Then there were men like Agathon and Pausanias, interlocutors in Symposium, who remained lovers well beyond what could be justifiably called pederasty. They were well-known and respected members of their society despite the taboo nature of their relationship. (Notice that the presence of a taboo on a behaviour in itself indicates its counterpart, the presence of a taboo behaviour in society.) There is an interesting discussion of the couple in the article Agathon and Pausanias: The Fortunes and Misfortunes of a Durable Homosexual Relation by Luc Brisson.
http://www.chs.harvard.edu/_/File/_/plato_symposium_brisson.pdf
Brisson first discusses the notable differences in the conceptualisation and social organisation of male homosexuality, and sexuality in general (neither homosexuality nor heterosexuality could be said to have existed in their modern forms), in ancient Greece. He then goes on to explain that, although male homosexuality was mostly channelled into the institution of pederasty, there was a visible group of men whose homosexuality defied this convention in that it did not respect the age differential on which pederasty was based.
September 6th, 2006 at 12:00 am
[Hmmm, I'll try to re-post my comment piecemeal, to better isolate what the heck is causing those over-adventurous spam filters to block me from posting.]
[Pt. One.]
matti,
Dan's entire worldview depends upon willful ignorance of historical examples; nothing you can provide will sway him.
Dan's insistence on differentiating pederasty, ephebophilia, adult male-male sexual relations, etc., in the way that he does, is an example of an overly abstract process of categorization established to build up his case. Furthermore, Dan's insistence on defining ideology or even intrinsic orientation by reference to specific activity suffers from a too-narrow viewpoint on the relationships between: ideology/orientation, activity, and social influence. Many ancient hebrews and others engaged in heterosexual ephebophilia, for instance (and, polygamy) but labeling these *expressions* of intrinsic orientation fundamentally different from other forms of activity which may also result from a common orientation, and then labeling the intrinsic orientation also therefore entirely distinct, suggests that his OODA loop is biased from a very limited, backward-looking overview of the forces and orientations of historical periods. [1]
September 6th, 2006 at 12:00 am
[That worked. Now for Part Two.]
You will find in arguing with Dan that he uses ellipses (actual grammatical ellipses quite often, but using abridgments of others' arguments as well) to censor out relevant information while building his case: an easy example of willful ignorance. For instance, he is quite hung-up on my reference to the Qing Dynasty, and will say that since it wasn't 'ancient', reference to exclusive male-male relationships before the modern era do not exist! Whereas, the Qing Dynasty began in the year 1616, well before the modern era. Or else, a reference from the Warring States Period, which began circa 5th C., BC, will be dismissed because I provided a translation of it rather than the original Chinese! One gets the impression that nothing other than a time machine and transportation to pre-modern times, where Dan could physically witness two adult men having sex, would convince him!
September 6th, 2006 at 12:00 am
[And, Part Three...]
BTW, during the course of my debate with Dan, I ran across an interesting essay by someone named Rictor Norton which you might find interesting. [2] Some of his arguments are rather silly, but his main point is pretty good. For instance, we see in modern homosexual pornography common references to 'boys' who are nonetheless 18, 19, 20, or older in age; so why the insistence on seeing ephebophilia in all extant examples in ancient literature of male-male relationships? (Except: to draw false or insupportable distinctions to support a personal bias?) In my debate with Dan, I had forgotten to mention the poem from the Greek Anthology mentioned by Norton in his essay….
I delight in the prime of a boy of twelve,
but a thirteen-year-old's better yet.
At fourteen he's Love's even sweeter flower,
& one going on fifteen's even more delightful.
Sixteen belongs to the gods, & seventeen. . .
it's not for me, but Zeus to seek.
If you want the older ones, you don't play
any more, but seek & answer back.
[Strato; Thomas Meyer trans.]
….in this progression, the older the lover, the better. The final line suggests that those older than 17 are not merely 'chased' or played with (a common impression for those who attack ephebophilia, with good reason I think) but must be 'answered back' , because they also seek out lovers. And there are other examples, like this from the Anthology:
I don't care for women,
But men make me burn with desire.
As men are stronger than women,
So are the loves they inflame.
[Anonymous]
… but since these are translations, no doubt they will not serve to convince Dan.
[1] http://www.phaticcommunion.com/archives/2006/08/godwinism.php
[2] http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/social19.htm
September 6th, 2006 at 12:00 am
[Oddly enough, my entire comment will post in this piecemeal fashion, but the comment as a whole would not allow me to post it!! If this is a case of 'spam filtering' I can't ascertain what, exactly, is being filtered out, since everything has posted! Unless length of comment is being considered?
BTW, I don't seem able to 'Remember info', but must type in my name, email, and URL every time I comment.]
September 7th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Matti,
“Have you ever wondered what made the homosexual relationships between men and youths possible, psychologically, in the ancient times without the presence of a homosexual desire?”
Scientifically, the best answer would be “the pederast” desire. Your explanation relies on
A Pre-Existing Homosexual Desire X A Conversion into a Pederast Desire X A Pederast Action
it would be similar to say
A Pre-Existing Homosexual Desire X A Pederast Action
That is Occam's razor, after all — avoid unnecessary multiplications
“Then there were men like Agathon and Pausanias, interlocutors in Symposium, who remained lovers well beyond what could be justifiably called pederasty.”
Thank you for pointing out a weakness in my words. In my latest post [1], I clarified the definitions to include “, or a relationship that originates as such” for all definitions. I think this should clear up some confusion.
“Then there were men like Agathon and Pausanias, interlocutors in Symposium, who remained lovers well beyond what could be justifiably called pederasty. They were well-known and respected members of their society despite the taboo nature of their relationship. (Notice that the presence of a taboo on a behaviour in itself indicates its counterpart, the presence of a taboo behaviour in society.)”
True, and it may be have been a taboo that pederastic couples who remained in a relationship after maturation. This would be a taboo against such long-lasting pederastic relationships. You cannot imply from this, however, a broader taboo against (and thus existence of) homosexuality unless you can demonstrate the existence of homosexuality in that period.
Curtis,
I'm glad you were able to successfully post your comment!
Your first post is a general ad hominem attack, and thus not logically relevant.
Your attempt to classify the “Qing” as existing before the Modern Era is at your blog [2]. The modern era is generally considered to have begun with the fall of the Byzantine Empire, and that is the standard I am using. The only reference to the Warring States I can find in your blog is the quote
“There are earlier examples, from the Warring States period, the Ming period, etc.”
Thus (if this is what you are refering to) I didn't criticize some translation from some ancient period — because you never said anything more than the period this supposed text comes from! You later repeat the criticism on “translation,” but this seems to be a manufactured slight.
[1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2006/09/07/historical-uniformism-v-historical-positivism-or-did-homosex.html
[2] http://www.phaticcommunion.com/archives/2006/06/homosexualism_v.php
September 7th, 2006 at 12:00 am
From 6-16-2006, an example of a passage from the Warring States Period:
“When Pan Zhang was young he had a beautiful [mei] appearance and bearing, and so people of that time were exceedingly fond of him. Wang Zhongxian of the state of Chu heard of his reputation and came to request his writings. Thereafter Wang Zhongxian wanted to study together with him. They fell in love at first sight and were as affectionate as husband and wife, sharing the same coverlet and pillow with unbounded intimacy for one another.
“Afterwards they died together and everyone mourned them. When they were buried together at Lofu Mountain, on the peak a tree with long branches and leafy twigs suddenly grew. All of these embraced one another! At the time people considered this a miracle. It was called the “Shared Pillow Tree.”’ “
–This is from a comment [1] on a post at Phatic Communion which you have already linked above in your first response to matti; thus, your insistence that
***”The only reference to the Warring States I can find in your blog is the quote
'There are earlier examples, from the Warring States period, the Ming period, etc.'
Thus (if this is what you are refering to) I didn't criticize some translation from some ancient period — because you never said anything more than the period this supposed text comes from!”***
–is a perfect example of your willful ignorance (or call in your use of spin?) to place your argument on a pristine pedestal! Especially, considering the fact that directly after the linked comment at PC, you said,
***”The last portion of your comment gives an incomplete excerpt of an undated story in a contemporary English translation. This is similar to saying that the “homosexual orientation” existed in the Danelaw because the magazine The Advocate exists now!”***
— and see how you have perversely said, only approx 1 hr after my reference to the Warring States Period, that the 'contemporary English translation' must be off kilter! [2]
So no, you can dismiss comments about your spin-tactics as 'ad hominem' — as if to throw a cover over the shoddy and/or disingenuous tactics you employ — but when I address those tactics, I am addressing the logic. If you identify yourself with your activity and draw an 'anti-ad hominem' argument over every reference to your conniving (i.e., purposeful) abridgment of the arguments others have provided, you will no doubt always have an ace up the sleeve for shutting down any points you do not wish to address. Kinda like calling 'Godwin's Law!' to shut down an argument.
[1] http://www.phaticcommunion.com/archives/2006/06/homosexualism_v.php#c1301
[2]
http://www.phaticcommunion.com/archives/2006/06/homosexualism_v.php#c1302
September 8th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Curtis,
I glanced right over those passages. I am grateful to you for pointing them out. My ignorance was of the harried, but not willful, sort.
Thus, I will revise my criticism
“The Pan Zhou story is an undated, incomplete excerpt from a secondary source.”
We have already seen in this conversation how Matti attempted to use “The Symposium” as proof in the historical antiquity of homosexuality, when actually is describes pedophilia and pederasty. Given this, my insistence on actually being shown proof is reasonable (and, of course, scientific).
I've been very happy to provide proof — indeed, it is I who linked to and directly quoted The Symposium. All I wish is to be presented with proof in turn.
You criticize me for using ellipses, and while I believe your specific criticisms are unfair, you are right that it would be unjust to provide a quote out of context. Yet the Pan Zhou story may be exactly that. Imagine how different this conversation may have turned if only the description Matti provided of the Symposium — and not the full text — was available. See how inappropriate ellipses can change meaning!
September 8th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Dan,
your insistence on inventing a new category for each example of Greek homosexuality that defies your constructionist paradigm and declaring that it is something other than homosexuality reminds me of what one critic said about this approach: “The major problem with the pure social constructionist theories on homosexuality is its non-falsifiability. Much like pure Marxism, or pure Freudianism, it is difficult to ascertain the the truth value of any statement if the theory is continually being revised with an ad hoc explanation.” [1] In other words, for each example of an undeniable homosexual desire between men a brand new category of “acts,” “conventions,” etc., is invented in order to stop dead on its tracks any attempt at discovering consistencies in forms of desire underlying forms of behaviour. The tendentious narrowing down of the category of homosexuality to exclude any element not perceived as pertaining to modern socio-sexual patterns is a perfect example of the intellectually dishonest constructionist's attempt to force his paradigm onto his material.
[1] http://www.polywog.org/sociology/sexuality/sctrev.pdf
September 8th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Dan wrote: “… Matti attempted to use “The Symposium” as proof in the historical antiquity of homosexuality, when actually is describes pedophilia and pederasty.”
Curtis, I doubt whether a time machine would suffice to provide evidence against a thesis that is in a continuing process of ad hoc redefinition. Dan would now have us believe that homosexual relationships between men in the ancient Greece were in fact some kind of mature variety of pederasty. Norton provides examples of the manipulation of data in constructivist analysis in the article which you provided. As it turns out, the younger partner in a “pederastic” relationship may well turn out to be in his twenties.
September 8th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Matti,
Thank you for your comments.
I'm generally impressed with constructivism [1], but I do not consider myself a “pure social construction.” Indeed, I've written against such beliefs before [2] [3] in the context of gender.
The link you provide says, among other things: “The major problem with the pure social constructionist theories on homosexuality
is its non-falsifiability. Much like pure Marxism, or pure Freudianism,
it is difficult to ascertain the the truth value of any statement if the theory
is continually being revised with an ad hoc explanation.”
This is untrue. If beliefs and categories were purely socially constructed, then abstract political beliefs could not be heritable, and all variation in them must be explained through shared environmental and unshared environmental factors. This is not true — this disproving social constructionism [4] (if I am understanding the term correctly).
A quick read of the article reveals some confusion over genetic factors, and howlers such as
“This is true of any minority ethnic, racial or religious class. A heterosexual does not need to identify himself as one; a white Anglo-Saxon protestant does not need to identify himself as such.”
The author believes most Americans are WASPS? That most Americans are off English descent? Or is here merely using “Anglo-Saxon” in a manner that refers neither to Anglos nor Saxons?
I'm sure there are intellectually rigorous articles that supports your views. The Recio text is surely not one of them.
Also, I'm confused on your praise of Norton, as he appears to hold a “social constructionist” (or whatever) view of homosexuality:
“On the other hand, to assert that the ‘modern’ homosexual was invented in the late nineteenth century, and then go on to say that ‘modern’ homosexuality is characteristically egalitarian rather than pederastic or transgenerational, is to completely ignore the fact that pederasty was still a major and perhaps even dominant model for homosexual relations at least until the Second World War.
…
It really was not until the late 1960s, and specifically in America, that androphilia or egalitarian homosexuality came to be held up as the ideal model for a modern queer democracy, and the pederastic model was characterized as being exploitative.
…
Those who think that equal-age ‘androphilia’ rules the day ought to peruse 1990s personal ads and porn videos, a typical title of which is Just Eighteen.
..
In sum, the alleged evolutionary progression from intergenerational to egalitarian paradigms is too inaccurately conceived, and too undifferentiated from a common heterosexual paradigm, to be a useful tool for queer history. “
Or is Norton arguing that pederasty and homosexuality are both socially constructed, and instead there is a pseudo-intergenerational form of same-sex behavior across cultures that subsumes includes both?
[1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2005/11/21/globalization-is-water-the-magic-cloud.html
[2] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2005/07/14/every-man-a-panzer-every-woman-a-soldat.htmlun
[3] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2006/04/09/the-unix-philosophy-modularity-and-patriarchy.html
[4] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2005/11/03/the-dna-of-politics.html
September 8th, 2006 at 12:00 am
matti,
I have recently responded to another, newer post by Dan at my blog:
http://www.phaticcommunion.com/archives/2006/09/on_judging_the.php
In that post, I have not only provided an expanded excerpt from the Symposium — to show what, and why, Dan carefully chose his small tidbit — but also addressed the tendency to split hairs and narrowly define, and then when necessary redefine, categories to support an ideological bias.