Know Thyself

Nothing in Excess
 
HomePortalFAQMemberlistSearchRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Dissecting the homosexual and the pedophile

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
AuthorMessage
Anfang

avatar

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 2743
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 35
Location : CET

PostSubject: Re: Dissecting the homosexual and the pedophile Sun Jan 05, 2014 10:33 am

Strongarm88 wrote:
Remember, Beta males are the opportunists. If the culture was more inclined towards masculine paternalistic traits then beta's would mimics those. I don't believe that faggy traits are particularly inherent n them, they just go with the flow...

That opportunism is a very feminine trait. That's the thing, to some degree, males are what they are and don't bend but break. Otherwise they become more and more feminine... which is why we are here where we are now.... because bending over has become an increasingly viable strategy for males. And I'm sure they'd playact whatever is deemed alpha and en vogue.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Dissecting the homosexual and the pedophile Sun Jan 05, 2014 11:12 am

Anfang wrote:

If homosexuality is statistically tied to a heightened risk for psychological issues then I'd say chances are that both are genetically influenced. Why and how else would they be connected.

I believe that puts the cart before the horse. Children from single-parent households tend to suffer from very similar disorders, although slightly less pronounced and this supports the disrupted developmental theory. I think people with certain genetically or socially derived psychological dispositions have an increased tendency towards homosexual activity and not the other way around. People who are unsure of their place/role in life and who are either disillusioned or downtrodden with reality are particularly susceptible ('I always knew I was different...')

This 5x increase in suicide rates suggests, to me, that it is a personal weakness and uncertainty coupled with a general hatred of life or at least of one's own life which causes people to seek refuge in an alternative lifestyle.

This is why I believe there is a very conscious effort to celebrate gay celebrities for coming out (like the NFL dude who got a call from the Obama): it spreads the idea that it requires bravery and courage to come out when it in fact represents a capitulation (more nihilistic inversion). This attracts the outcast who will debase himself for some exposure, his moment of recognition, when he should really remain anonymous by all masculine standards.

Add in socially accepted hedonism and a gratuitous drug culture and you have yourself a fabulous and decadent minority outfucking everyone else by a very large margin.
Back to top Go down
Anfang

avatar

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 2743
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 35
Location : CET

PostSubject: Re: Dissecting the homosexual and the pedophile Sun Jan 05, 2014 12:24 pm

Strongarm88 wrote:
This 5x increase in suicide rates suggests, to me, that it is a personal weakness and uncertainty coupled with a general hatred of life or at least of one's own life which causes people to seek refuge in an alternative lifestyle.

Could all be the case but things like personal weakness, general hatred of life and so on are in my view also genetic pre-dispositions.

I'm not saying that homosexuality is tied to a specific gene or set of genes, like an on/off switch, it's not either you are homosexual or you are not, genetically - that's probably not the case. But, I'm convinced there are genetic factors which significantly increase the chance of developing a homosexual psychology.

And then it comes down to the use of the word "true"-homosexual, to me that's someone who is genetically enough pre-disposed to homosexuality that even in an environment which is anti-homosexual, he'd engage in homosexual acts, or at least desire to do so.

But I agree about that celebration of homosexuality in the media. To me it is memetic engineering, one element of many, to increase the current trend of feminization. Once the level of feminization has reached a certain point, there is actually demand for its celebration because those who are leading the charge, those who have adapted to that way of life do want confirmation and appreciation of their behaviour.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Dissecting the homosexual and the pedophile Sun Jan 05, 2014 5:39 pm

If modern sexual deviancies are justified using the "ancients did it, it was normal" argument, why not legalize slavery? Surely the ancients did that too...

I actually think the Virtuous Pedophile movement - 'don't treat them as monsters', etc. is to our advantage. Pedophiles voluntarily marking themselves out keeps the gene pool safe.
How many women have woken up in shock to discover they married a closet homo. and his genes proliferating in the pool further... imagine having the child of a closet pedo. in your own home...
And how many crimes of the Catholic priests and the synagogues we don't know..?
We can't afford to let these people go anonymous. Opening out pedophilia as another "natural" category has to happen. And this wont happen till that category is given some social incentive, some reward... to indicate "acceptance", "normalization", else who would come out. It has to be promoted as a "pride" of some sort, one more era of such pride-marches... What rewards would those be remains to be seen.
Will they bring back child marriages?!
Messy.

Below is an excerpt of the Communist dream of total equality and perfect love after the abolition of all kinds of sexual discrimination;

Quote :
"Gay homosexuality is, according to Fernbach, not only a particular, but also, even more importantly, an advanced — that is a radically progressive — form of the development of homosexuality which, “unlike the prevalent forms of homosexuality met with in other societies, or even some marginal forms found in our own, is incompatible with the gender definitions of femininity and masculinity” (18). Gay men and women are rebels against the gender system and as such form a potential advance guard in the struggle to eradicate the gender system and gender differences altogether. “Instead of two radically different types of human being, feminine women and masculine men, with this distinction involving a very definite relationship of oppression in the bargain,” a post-gender society would enable all human beings to “combine the positive aspects attributed at present to one sex or the other alone, and jettison the negative aspects”:

Both women and men could be sensitive and caring and both could be emotionally independent and technically competent. Love would be a relationship between equals, rather than between dominant and subordinate.

Normal homosexuality is the diametrical opposite of gayness. Homosexuality between normal men is structured by the gender system, and can take a stable form only as a relationship between dominant and subordinate modelled on that between man and woman. Gayness, on the other hand, comes into being in objective opposition to the gender system, as a deviant form, and the more it escapes the vicious influences of the gendered society around it, the more it takes a form that is inherently egalitarian.

Fernbach elaborates on this point further in a quite striking way: “to define yourself as gay. . .even in the minimal sense of accepting the judgement of the environing society that there is something different about you, is to recognize that your homosexuality has something different about it that is radically incompatible with the prevalent normality — that you are ‘bent’, ‘queer’ i.e. in no way a ‘proper’ man.” In fact, "gay men. . .really are effeminate". Gayness is a function of “a deviance from the gendered system that is anchored in our personalities in the course of childhood experience, and the choice to build our lives around the homosexual preference that this induces” (85). According to Fernbach, even those gay men that seem to be quite masculine, and cultivate seemingly very “macho” forms of expression and communication of their homosexuality are still, by and large, more “effeminate” — more feminine — than most straight men. Even such a “masculine gay man” is “unprepared for the inter-male struggle for dominance” that accepting and conforming to the conventional heterosexual norm requires, and he is especially unable ever to view women first and last as simply “objects to fuck”. Moreover, even the masculine gay man “reduces himself” to the status of a woman in his readiness to fall in love with his peers among his fellow men — and it is important, moreover, to recognize that he is ready to fall totally in love; ready to seek out a total, and especially physical, expression and communication of attraction and desire; and ready to make himself dependent upon and vulnerable to the other, an extremely “un-masculine” position, and an extremely difficult and precarious position for anyone who is produced to be a “man” in a patriarchal sexist and heterosexist culture.

But if there is no rigid boundary line between ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ individuals, whether coinciding or not with the division of biological sex, it is also impossible to reduce the division between gay and straight to one of effeminacy and non-effeminacy. Gay men are not the only category of effeminates . . .There are a minority of soft heterosexuals, and a possibly larger minority of ‘over-compensators’, who play such an important part in our oppression as queer-bashers. . .

“Straightness” is ultimately antithetical to this communist ideal; not only will the proletariat have to supplant the bourgeoisie as the dominant class but also gayness will have to supplant straightness as the dominant form of organization of sexual interaction, identity, community, and culture in the period of revolutionary socialist reconstruction and transition from capitalism to communism: Under communism the division of society into distinct socio-economic classes and into groups of people with “gay” versus “straight” “sexual orientations” and “sexual preferences” will both ultimately be superseded. As Fernbach explains:

A potential rivalry is involved in any sexual relationship that is more than casual. Yet the exclusion of homosexuality rules out any element of mediation such as a transitive network of relationships provides. Even when straight men are allied by common work, kinship or belief, they are still underneath it all enemy brothers, and it is legendary how competition over women turns brotherhood into hate. Even when not immediately realized, this potential always lurks just beneath the surface, dividing men from one another and thus helping perpetuate the law of violence — indeed it is the first precondition for masculine hierarchy. If men are to love one another, as all great religions have taught, it must be possible for us to love one another in the full, sexual sense; as long as this is tabooed, inter-male competition can never be dissolved."

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Dissecting the homosexual and the pedophile Sun Jan 05, 2014 5:40 pm

Animal kingdom:

Quote :
"Homosexual Evolution

From the existence of homosexuality in nature and from its frequent taxonomic clustering (i.e. more closely related organisms display increasingly similar homosexual behavior) we can infer that homosexuality has evolved. But because no one has been able to observe the evolution of homosexuality first hand we can only theorize as to how it happened. Based on behavioral studies of homosexuality in humans and animals a number of models and explanations have been proposed for how this seemingly gene-stopping practice has evolved.

There are two main types of explanations for how and why homosexuality has evolved in animals:

Homosexual behaviors (such as same-sex mounting and cross-gender mimicry) are non-functional but not particularly harmful side effects of adaptive behavior. Homosexuality is thus unintentional (meaning the animal has no drive for same-sex copulation).
Homosexuality is adaptive , amplifying an organism's ability to pass on its genes. Homosexuality is thus intentional (meaning the animal has a specific drive for same-sex copulation).
Biologists, usually studying a limited range of animals, have gravitated to either one or the other of these two explanations and sometimes extrapolated their theories to broadly explain animal homosexuality. However, when evaluating the wide spectrum of various homosexual behaviors in the animal kingdom it becomes clear that homosexuality has evolved both as a side effect and as an advantageous adaptive behavior.

Homosexuality the side effect: As Alcock describes (1984 & 1989) the side effect model of the evolution of homosexuality proposes that homosexuality is a result of the intense drive to have sex. The workings of this model have much to do with the principles of heterosexuality. In mammals, females must carry their young through pregnancy, thus limiting their potential number of offspring. Males need only contribute sperm, however, and may have no additional cost or time investment in their offspring. Males can produce sperm effectively endlessly and father many offspring. A male mammal's reproductive success is enhanced as it inseminates more females, thus ensuring a larger number of offspring. A female can't produce a higher number of offspring through increased copulation so it is of no benefit for a female to increase her number of sexual partners. A female increases her fitness through selecting the best possible father for her offspring, thus increasing the fitness and chance for survival in her young. Much of the difference between male and female sexual behavior in mammals can be explained simply by the fact that females are taken out of the gene-mixing loop while pregnant.
Through evolution males have acquired behavior compelling them to compete with other males for wider, more frequent copulation and thus greater reproductive success. The side effect model of homosexuality proposes that "hypersexuality" has consequently evolved in males which causes them to strive for a maximum number of copulations with a wide range of partners and that their imperfect sex recognition when in such a state of heat leads them to mount males as well as females.

This theory is well-supported by observations of sexual behavior in the animal kingdom. As Denniston points out (1980), animal "homosexuality" is a misnomer, and really refers to bisexuality or"ambisexuality," or the behavior of mounting with animals of both sexes. Only in a few isolated species are any animals even occasionally preferentially homosexual (as in some primates, including Japanese macaques; see Small, 1993, p. 145; West, 1977, p. 116). The side effect model of homosexuality can explain many same-sex sexual behaviors, such as male mallard ducks and stickleback fish courting each other when deprived of females (West, 1977, p. 43; Denniston, 1980) and the frequent homosexuality in all-male groups of mountain gorillas (Yamagiwa, 1987). This model, suggesting evolution has favored a greater sex drive in males, is supported by observed masturbation rates: There are no known human cultures in which females masturbate more frequently than males. The same is true for non-human primates. Rhesus monkeys raised in isolation from their parents (to prevent learned behavior) showed higher masturbation rates in males, suggesting an innate difference in sex drive (Green, 1978).

The side effect model also helps explain why animals can be observed attempting copulations outside of their species, such as the European toad photographed clasping a "human finger as it would a female of its species" and an Australian beetle observed attempting copulation with a beer bottle (Alcock, 1984, p. 352). In captivity animals deprived of their natural mates will seek to copulate with unusual partners, such as the male brown hyena observed to frequently copulate with its water bowl, the chimpanzee which formed "a sexual relationship with a cat, and an immature female gorilla [which] showed pseudomale behavior toward a dog (Grier, 1984, p. 626). Animals clearly have powerful sex drives which may cause their copulatory behavior to be somewhat indiscriminate, an understandable side effect because animals don't copulate having made a conscious decision to pass on their genes.

The side effect model is inadequate for explaining many other homosexual behaviors, however. This model predicts that "the value that males place on sexual variety for its own sake [to ensure multiple copulatory partners, should] be absent or much reduced in" females (Alcock, 1989, pp. 525-527). Female homosexuality in animals is certainly not "absent," as has been illustrated with many examples above, ranging from gulls and budgerigars to cows and primates. To what degree (if any) homosexuality is reduced in females is debatable.

The side effect model also has diminished applicability in non-mammal vertebrate species. Because these do not generally incubate offspring internally during pregnancy females can potentially increase reproductive success through multiple matings (as is the case with polyandrous phalaropes and Galapagos hawks). While it is true that biological cost is still associated with mothering (if only to produce eggs), it is evident from both non-male and non-mammal homosexuality that the side effect model does not fully explain general animal homosexuality.

Homosexuality the adaptive behavior: One reason the side effect model is inadequate by itself is that homosexual behavior is clearly intentional for adaptive reasons in some animals (not merely accidental during the fervent reproduction-maximizing pursuit of partners as the side effect model suggests). There are various reasons suggested for intentional homosexual behavior. Many have to do with an organism's reducing the copulations and gene dispersal of competitors, to ensure that a greater proportion of the next generation will be its own.

Male-male homosexuality in non-human primates is frequently "seen in the context of dominance rank and high social tension or stress than in a sexual context" (Yamagiwa, 1987; Yamagiwa, 1992). This has also been described as the reason behind male same-sex mounting and copulation in mountain sheep (Weinrich, 1982; Denniston, 1980). Dominating other males through homosexual coitus could be akin to the typical nonsexual aggression used against other males to decrease their share of the females.

"Surrogate sexual satisfaction" is another form of intentional adaptive homosexuality. This is the practice of copulating with an individual of one's own gender to cause that individual to be satisfied, so it won't seek other partners. This appears to be a motive for female-female copulation in langurs (Small, 1993, pp. 146-147) and male ten-spined sticklebacks fishes (Denniston, 1980).

Other possible explanations of how homosexuality could be advantageous include: Long term male-male and female-female homosexual relationships in primates such as Japanese macaques (Mehlman & Chapais, 1988), mountain gorillas (Yamagiwa, 1992), and gibbons (Edwards & Todd, 1991) result in lower stress and tension and/or better grooming for the individuals involved, all of which would positively influence an organism's health and prolong its chances for reproduction.

Homosexuality can also serve to make and maintain beneficial social alliances between individuals, such as in primates (Small, 1993, pg. 147) and gulls which typically mate for life but have lost a mate and need another one, even of the same gender, to safely raise their young (Davies, 1991).

In many species (such as tree shrews, squirrel monkeys, and many types of macaques; see Mitchell, 1979, p. 416) females engage in homosexual copulation when "they are in a new environment or undergoing stress." This could be an innate mechanism for limiting overpopulation or wasted energy on reproduction and fetus-production when environmental conditions make survivalship unlikely. One difficulty with applying the "density dependent population control" theory more broadly is that under "conditions of high density the frequency of any gene disposing toward homosexuality would be drastically reduced, since individuals bearing it would not breed. Consequently, the representation of such a gene would decline in subsequent generations," diminishing its effectiveness as a selected-for population control mechanism (Kirsch & Rodman, 1982).

The theory of kin selection has been cited by many. Kin selection theory explains why some animals will display "altruism," such as squirrels which give warning cries of predators to help their relatives even while endangering themselves or unmated birds which help rear their younger siblings. Close relatives such as nieces and nephews also carry on an individual's gene line. This theory has been applied to homosexuality and it has been argued that homosexuals can help tend and see to the survival of their close relatives such while not having to undergo the disadvantages of parenthood themselves, thus increasing their close relatives' survivalship and offsetting their own non-parentage (Ruse, 1981; Denniston, 1980; Kirsch & Rodman, 1982). One problem with this theory, however, is most animals which engage in homosexuality do quite well meeting their quota of heterosexual sex, and may even enjoy greater than average dissemination of their genes for some of the reasons discussed above."

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Dissecting the homosexual and the pedophile Sun Jan 05, 2014 8:01 pm

Very interesting posts Lyssa.

From Homosexuality: A Paradox of Evolution
Quote :
To answer why homosexuality exists we must first identify it. "Homosexuality" has two principle meanings which are distinct but related. Homosexuality is sexual activity between two individuals of the same gender. This includes same-sex coitus or genital contact, whether ventro-ventral, dorso-ventral, or otherwise and whether male-male or female-female.

Homosexuality is also the innate sexual preference for one's own gender or the biological urge for same-sex coitus. While much is said about the distinction between homosexual desires (or innate sex drive) and homosexual behavior in humans, this distinction is of limited or negligible significance in non-human populations in which we infer "desire" (be it instinctive or learned) primarily from behavior. The distinctive gulf between human desire/biological impulse and behavior (Marmor, 1980) is attributed to human social mores and cultural constraints (Dickemann, 1993), which epigenetic forces can also be accounted for with biological/evolutionary explanations (Alcock, 1984, pp. 522 & 524).

The abstract of the article itself describes the essay as being an exploration of 'homosexuality in the animal kingdom', however, the definitions of homosexuality provided both talk about 'gender', immediately humanising the investigation.

More blatant is the reference to 'same-sex coitus'. From Merriam-Webster:

Quote :
Sexual union between a male and a female involving insertion of the penis into the vagina.

As such same-sex coitus is an oxymoron. Considering neither penetration nor ejaculation are seen during homosexual actions in animal kingdom the Latin 'coire' (from (i) gather fluid (ii) fit together) also seems to provide no appropriate basis for this word being co-opted in this manner. Seems like more degradation of language in an attempt to justify pre-existing biases in my opinion.

From your first post:

Quote :
“Straightness” is ultimately antithetical to this communist ideal; not only will the proletariat have to supplant the bourgeoisie as the dominant class but also gayness will have to supplant straightness as the dominant form of organization of sexual interaction, identity, community, and culture in the period of revolutionary socialist reconstruction and transition from capitalism to communism: Under communism the division of society into distinct socio-economic classes and into groups of people with “gay” versus “straight” “sexual orientations” and “sexual preferences” will both ultimately be superseded.

This passage is such a great epithet of the Marxist solipsism infecting modern discourse. View everything within a quasi-economic, self-referential and enclosed worldview and proceed to level or invert all hierarchies with no meaningful relationship to history, biology or psychology being required.

Thanks Comrade!
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Dissecting the homosexual and the pedophile Sun Jan 05, 2014 10:14 pm

I'm not sure, but it seems to me that pederasty is something that happens in strongly patriarchal cultures in which women are essentially abolished from the public sphere and in which there's a high premium on a girl's virginity. Such a social structure could result in a kind of "build up" of sexual energy in (what would otherwise be) heterosexual men and which is then transferred onto young boys. Then again, they did have slave girls and prostitutes which could have served as an outlet too, so maybe I'm wrong.

But pederasty would then be thwarted/re-directed heterosexuality. I can't think how else to explain it, as I doubt that pederasty is institutionalized homosexuality, nor do I think it's an orientation in-itself, like a "pedesexuality".

I assume ancient Greece was familiar with strict homosexuals and called them kinaidos/malakoi (got from Bruce Thornton's Eros). It's a common-place that ancient societies mostly distinguished between active/passive and not necessarily between straight/gay as such - though the harshest opprobrium was attached to the man who submitted himself to being anally penetrated, i.e. the passive.

Incidentally, in this way, one might agree with the quoted communist idea of "superseding" straight/gay. I doubt Marxists are right to say that modern concepts of sexual categories and orientations are directly an artifact of "capitalist relations" or whatever (on a whim, I'd guess it's probably more connected with the rise of science and a scientific way of thinking about sexuality), but it is certainly true that different societies think of these things in different ways.
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 17439
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 52
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Dissecting the homosexual and the pedophile Tue Jan 07, 2014 7:06 am

Homosexuality also happens in systems where hedonism or sexual stress release is used as a social lubricant, to avoid conflict.

But there's a difference between being attracted to the opposite sex and using it to relive your libidinal energies or to display your prowess.

The ancient Greeks actually looked down on those who liked to be penetrated.

Prepubescent boys, it can be argued, are undeveloped males...and this is how some have described the female sex.
So, a boy is somewhere between male and female, in an intellectual, psychological sense.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Dissecting the homosexual and the pedophile Tue Jan 07, 2014 6:34 pm

Whitman's 'Comradeship' :


Quote :
"I  will make divine magnetic lands, With the love of comrades, With the life-long love of comrades."

—“For You O Democracy”  [Whitman]


The concept of comradeship is at the heart of Walt Whitman’s religious and moral enterprise. In the words of Mila T. Maynard, “[t]he circle of Whitman’s thought finds its perfect round in the idea of comradeship.” In his work, Whitman elevates the idea of comradeship to quasi-mystical levels. It is, indeed, the love of comrades that reveals the original meaning and pur- pose of Whitman’s work.

While it is in “Calamus” that Whitman expresses most emphatically his enthusiasm for the love of comrades, references to comrades and “camerados” abound in his poetry and in his prose writings.

In a verse of marked prophetic overtones placed in one of the early sections of Leaves of Grass, Whitman announces: “I will write the evangel-poem of comrades and of love” (“Starting from Paumanok,” 6). The messianic aura that we find in this and in other similar verses reveals the emotional intensity he attached to his desire to establish a new morality of comradeship. In Leaves of Grass the religious message is inseparable from the new ethics it serves to justify. For Whitman to say that he will write the evangel of comrades is only consistent with his early references to his intention to construct a cathedral or a New Bible. The religious connotations with which Whitman invests his ideal of comradeship are also manifest in the following lines from his 1871 poem “Gods”:

Lover divine and perfect Comrade,
Waiting content, invisible yet, but certain,
Be thou my God.

Thou, thou, the Ideal Man,
Fair, able, beautiful, content, and loving,
Complete in body and dilate in spirit,
Be thou my God.

The poet’s sacred ideal constitutes a clear example of the peculiar integration of his ethics and his aesthetics. Whitman’s perfect Comrade, his ideal man is, among other things, “fair,” “beautiful,” “content,” and “com- plete in body.” At least on two separate occasions, Whitman calls himself in Leaves of Grass “the poet of comrades” (“Starting from Paumanok,” 6, and “These I singing in Spring”), while in “In Paths Untrodden,” the first poem of the “Calamus” cluster, he introduces the reader to the celebration of masculine comradeship:

In paths untrodden,
In the growth by margins of pond-waters,
Escaped from the life that exhibits itself,
From all the standards hitherto publish’d, from the pleasures,

profits, conformities,
Which too long I was offering to feed my soul,
Clear to me now standards not yet publish’d, clear to me that

my soul,
That the soul of the man I speak for rejoices in comrades, Here by myself away from the clank of the world,
Tallying and talk’d to here by tongues aromatic,
No longer abash’d, (for in this secluded spot I can respond as I

would not dare elsewhere,)
Strong upon me the life that does not exhibit itself, yet

contains all the rest,
Resolved to sing no songs to-day but those of manly

attachment,
Projecting them along that substantial life,
Bequeathing hence types of athletic love,

Afternoon this delicious Ninth month in my forty-first year,
I proceed for all who are or have been young men,
To tell the secret of my night and days,
To celebrate the need of comrades


In the 1860 poem of the “Calamus” group entitled “I Hear It Was Charged Against Me,” the poet manifests his purpose to establish “the institution of the dear love of comrades” all over the world. In the parenthetical verses “These I Sing in the Spring,” another poem within the same cluster, the calamus “root” is established as the symbol of comradeship which youths are to interchange with each other:

(O here I last saw him that tenderly loves me, and returns again never to separate from me,

And this, O this shall henceforth be the token of comrades, this calamus- root3 shall,

Interchange youths with each other! let none render it back!)

As early as 1896, Thomas Donaldson, one of Whitman’s personal friends and biographers, stated in his Walt Whitman, the Man that Whitman’s poems celebrating “love of comrades” were written not out of actual experience but as a compensation for his own loneliness. To this, Allen adds that Whitman put into his poems “the ‘passion- ate love of comrades’ for which he found no human recipient.”8 Schyberg, for his part, by resorting to Freudian interpretation, concludes that the underlying meaning of Whitman’s idea of comradeship is sexual in nature. He slightly hints also at the possibility of sublimation, purification (through intellectual or aesthetic means) or sacralization of those originally sexual feelings.

The new ethics of comradeship that Whitman envisages is fueled by intense feelings of manly attachment. The poet does not spell out his new morality in any systematic way. Rather, in a typically messianic fashion, he teaches a prin- ciple and presents his own life as an example of how to implement it in prac- tice. It is passionate non-sexual (or at least non-genital) love between males that constitutes the essence of Whitman’s new morality. The “passionate love of comrades,” as he calls it, finds its proper expression in certain rituals, such as kissing on the lips:

Here to put your lips upon mine I permit you,
With the comrade’s long-dwelling kiss or the new husband’s

kiss,
For I am the new husband and I am the comrade.

(“Whoever You Are Holding Me Now in Hand”) .

.........................

Yet comes one a Manhattanese and ever at parting kisses me lightly on the lips with robust love,

And on the crossing of the street or on the ship’s deck give a kiss in return,

We observe that salute of American comrades land and sea.

(“Behold This Swarthy Face”) .

.........................

When you, my son and my comrade drop’t at my side that day [ . . . ] One touch of your hand to mine O boy, reach’d up as you lay

on the ground [ . . . ]
Found you in death so cold, dear comrade, found your body

son of responding kisses, (never again on earth

responding) [ . . . ]
My comrade I wrapt in his blanket, envelop’d well his form, [ . . . ]
Vigil for a boy of responding kisses, (never again on earth responding,) [ . . . ]

(“Vigil Strange I Kept on the Field One Night”)



Of the above selections, the first two are part of the “Calamus” cluster (1860), while the last one, in which a more developed morality of comrade- ship finds a concrete embodiment, belongs in the “Drum Taps” group (1865). Besides kissing, holding hands is another ritual that gives expression to the morality of comradeship:

O camerado close! O you and me at last and us two only. O a word to clear one’s path ahead endlessly!
O something ecstatic and undemonstrable! O music wild! O now I triumph—and you shall also;

O hand in hand—O wholesome pleasure—O one more desirer and lover!

O to haste firm holding—to haste, haste on with me.
(“Starting from Paumanok,” 19).

........................

When he whom I love travels with me or sits a long while holding me by the hand

(“Of the Terrible Doubt of Appearances” [“Calamus”]) .

.........................

You friendly boatmen, and mechanics! you roughs! [ . . . ]
I wish to infuse myself among you till I see it common for you to walk hand in hand.

(“A Leaf for Hand in Hand” [“Calamus”])



In the rituals of kissing and holding hands, which were actually practiced among Whitman’s disciples, Binns sees more than mere sentimentality. He sees in it an expression of the warmth of manly comradeship that needs to be witnessed. Others interpret these rituals as a touch of rebellion against “decrees” of society, as an attempt to free oneself from the irrational fear of gender confusion, from the idea that aggressiveness is reserved for the male and tenderness for the female. Kaplan sees Whitman almost as a precursor of the men’s liberation movement, since, in his opinion, the poet was claiming for men the right to express feelings the way women do:

[Whitman] believed he was doing neither more nor less than claiming for men the emotional freedom and physical expressiveness—holding hands, touching, hugging, kissing—that society allowed women to enjoy with each other.

Tempting as Kaplan’s hypothesis may be, it is a dubious one. Not only is his assertion of what Whitman “believed he was doing” not supported by any evidence, but also one has only to look at Whitman’s fascination with the mas- culine to realize that it is hardly believable that the poet would purposefully claim feminine characteristics for his proud males. Indeed, the very magne- tism of those males of which Whitman so often talks lies in the fact that they represent the quintessence of masculinity.

Kaplan goes even further by saying that “[a]ndrogyny, the beautiful integrating principle that had stirred poets from Plato to Coleridge, seemed only natural and right to Whitman.” The question is a valid one, however, whether these behaviors Whitman wanted to implement among the follow- ers of his religion were socially acceptable masculine behavior, whether kiss- ing and holding hands are not exclusively part of female behavior. One could answer to this that while kissing and holding hands are, indeed, more habitual behaviors among female friends, they also take place among males in certain “marginal” circumstances. This is the kind of behavior that takes place today in a soccer match when one of the players scores a goal, and in other characteristically all-male sports. The other players of his team hug him, kiss him, and even roll on the ground with him as they mutually kiss and hug. These behaviors also occur in other marginal situations, such as in tragic circumstances of many types. They also occur in religious settings, though in a more ritualized manner. In the Catholic Church, for instance, at a special mass after the elevation of a new pope, all bishops attending the ceremony embrace and ritually kiss the new pontiff.

Kissing and holding hands are, therefore, behaviors that do occur between males and, when they do, they often occur precisely in male-only settings. But they are marginal behaviors in that they take place in special, unusual (and, in that sense, marginal) situations. They constitute what I will call “the marginality of friendship,” that is, the marginality of regular male friendship. Contrary to Kaplan’s claim, then, what Whitman was doing had nothing to do with a desire to move his masculine comrades closer to a nebulous androgynous area of sexual indistinguishability, but rather with giving core status to those marginal aspects of male friendship. Indeed, Reyn- olds claims that Whitman “makes the common nineteenth-century prac- tice of men sleeping together a means of reconciling his private desires with his reformist instinct towards virtuous conduct.” One could add that not only sleeping together, but sustained hugging, kissing, holding hands, and embracing. In a 1905 article in The Conservator, entitled “Whitman’s Mes- sage to a Young Man,” we read: “A hand is laid gently, magnetically on the young man’s shoulder. No word need to be spoken. He is comforted and enheartened, for he knows there is some one who understands, not through learning, but with an understanding born of love.”

This may well sound like homosexuality to us today. And it may well be that the feeling behind those words was one we would identify today as homosexual. But when those words were written, and even more during Whitman’s lifetime, those expressions, those behaviors, and the feeling behind them, represented rather an honor- able intersection, not suspect in any way, between what today we would call the heterosexual and the homosexual.

Those socially acceptable behaviors provided an emotional, romantic, and occasionally sexual threshold where same-sex oriented men could find emotional equilibrium. Such threshold could be, indeed, extraordinarily ample. In an 1864 letter, Burroughs, wrote about a night when he shared a bed with Whitman: “He kisses me as if I were a girl [ . . . ] He bathed [ . . . ] while I was there—such a handsome body, and such a delicate, rosy flesh I never saw before. I told him he looked good enough to eat.” He also mentions how a soldier stopped in the street and kissed the poet.60

Whitman’s great opportunity to practice comradeship materialized dur- ing the Civil War, while working as a volunteer nurse at the Washington hos- pitals. There, he consoled the young soldiers, whom he caressed and kissed. That the war hospitals turned out to be the ideal scenario for the rituals of comradeship is no mere accident, as it is perfectly consistent with the margin- ality of friendship hypothesis. War hospitals constitute the perfect example of a situation that would allow for marginal behaviors, as previously defined, to take place among males.

This remark brings us again to the point that the war hospitals were perfect laboratories for experiencing the marginality of friendship in its utmost intensity. The marginal aspects of male friendship, which involve intense physical contact and other unusual signs of affection between males, can only take place on a continuous basis at a high price, e.g., during ongoing highly dramatic situations, like a war, and especially, for obvious reasons, in a war hospital. That the hospitals offered Whitman a way around the established moral code is not fully accurate, the fact being that hugging, kissing, holding hands and caressing between males constitutes indeed acceptable behavior in particular situations (more then than nowadays), such as those Whitman placed himself in. For that reason, he could display those behaviors in the open and write about them in his letters. Whatever his deep personal motivation, Whitman’s behavior in the hospitals was not immoral by the standards of his time. By the same token, that Whitman was “feeding on death” should be read as meaning that Whit- man was willing to pay the price of witnessing suffering and death, in order to have the opportunity of experiencing the marginality of masculine friendship in all its intensity, as that is what constitutes the central aspect of his ethics of comradeship.

Whitman’s feelings of “adhesiveness” were particularly intense with a few soldiers. Indeed, he fell in love with some of them. But even in those cases, the poet experienced his very intense feeling as one of comradeship, and even when he proposed to a soldier that they live together, the description of their future life was one of comrades.

But the hospitals were only a laboratory of comradeship. The rituals of comradeship that were justified within their walls could not be extended beyond them into the outside world.  

But without doubt the sacralization of the idea of comradeship takes place in the 1860 poem entitled “To Him That Was Crucified,” where the poet repeatedly addresses Christ as “comrade,” sets himself on the same plane as Christ, and identifies his own messianic enterprise with that of Jesus. This is a poem that deserves to be quoted in its entirety, as the emerging picture is particularly meaningful for our discussion:

My spirit to yours dear brother,
Do not mind because many sounding your name do not
understand you,

I do not sound your name, but I understand you,
I specify you with joy O my comrade to salute you, and to

salute those who are with you, before and since, and
those to come also,
That we all labor together transmitting the same charge and

succession,
We few equals indifferent of lands, indifferent of times, We, enclosers of all continents, all castes, allowers of all

theologies,
Compassionaters, perceivers, rapport of men,
We walk silent among disputes and assertions, but reject not

the disputers nor any thing that is asserted,
We hear the bawling and din, we are reach’d at by divisions,

jealousies, recriminations on every side,
They close peremptorily upon us to surround us, my comrade, Yet we walk unheld, free the whole earth over, journeying up

and down till we make our ineffaceable mark upon time

and the diverse eras,
Till we saturate time and eras, that the men and women of

races, ages to come, may prove brethren and lovers as we are.

Echoing perhaps Emerson’s “Divinity School Address,” Whitman admits Christ into the society of the supermen, but only as an equal to the poet himself and the other supermen. The idea, later developed by Bucke in Cosmic Con- sciousness, is also present in this poem that these superior individuals have surfaced in all ages and places. Still, the most interesting aspect of the poem is the poet’s identification with Christ as “brethren and lovers,” and as comrades. Given our previous analysis of the nature of Whitman’s concept of comrade- ship, such identification of Christ by the poet as “brother,” “comrade,” and “lover” is suggestive of a number of possibilities. One of them is that Whit- man assumed the existence underlying the Christian idea of brotherhood of the same impulse that triggered his “love of comrades”—allegedly, a homosex- ual impulse. Another possible explanation is that Whitman identified Christ’s message of brotherhood with his own, while assuming that their respective motivations may be different.

Kuebrich develops a strictly religious interpretation of Whitman’s ideal of manly comradeship, which excludes as irrelevant psychoanalytical interpretations of the notion of comradeship. To him, the poet’s ideal of comradeship is to be understood within a purely religious framework of reference:

[A]ny adequate interpretation of Calamus must relate the sequence to Whitman’s effort to establish a new religion because the love Whitman celebrates in Calamus provides both the existential basis and ultimate fulfillment of his faith [ . . . ]. Whitman conceives of this love as arising primarily out of experiences of intense love between men.

In other words, Kuebrich thinks that comradeship is all Whitman’s reli- gion is about. To him, the love of comrades provides “the existential basis and ultimate fulfillment of his faith.” Whitman’s religion is, then, the religion of comradeship. One is more than inclined to agree with him on this point.

One also thinks of the common root of the words “virility” and “virtue,” (a suggestion that virtue is a “manly” attribute).

In brief, Kuebrich gives a non-sexual interpretation to Whitman’s ideal of manly comradeship, while affirming that manly love is an experience of the soul and that the calamus is reserved for a spiritual elite. Still, as the all too obvious homosexual leanings of Whitman cannot be ignored, Kuebrich concedes that Whitman was a “repressed homosexual” who had inklings of his homosexual- ity but never allowed this self-understanding to reach full consciousness. As if to leave no doubt, he concludes: “Far from being a brave pioneer of gayness, [Whitman] continued to repress a discomforting part of himself.”

In his preface to the 1876 edition of Leaves of Grass, he states that the special meaning of the “Calamus” cluster resides in his polit- ical significance. “It is by fervent development of comradeship,” he writes “that the United States of the future [ . . . ] are to be most effectually welded together, intercalated, annealed into a living union.” Comradeship, Whitman defines as “the beautiful and sane affection of man for man, latent in all the young fellows, north and south, east and west,” and, as we saw earlier, as the pas- sionate attachment of man to man. There is clearly an eschatological vision in Whitman’s religion of comradeship.
In Symonds’s 1893 book Walt Whitman: A Study, comradeship is professed to be an indispensable civic virtue with a role in the individual’s life superior to that of sexuality.81 This British dis- ciple of Whitman also emphasizes the point that Whitman does not conceive of comradeship as a merely personal possession. Rather, he says, Whitman regards it eventually as a social and political virtue. “This human emotion,” Symonds concludes, “is destined to cement society and to render common- wealths inviolable.”

In Democratic Vistas, Whitman expresses his concept of democracy and his hopes for its perfect realization in the United States. Whitman’s concept of democracy is definitely poetical, if not purely dreamy. His hope, which he insistently expresses, that the United States will annex Canada and Cuba, combines in his book with detailed descriptions of the American “superman” as he conceives him. A new, indigenous literature will be the fuel of this superior democracy where there will be no room for universal suffrage. In this perfect democracy, perfect women will be, first and foremost, perfect mothers, while male comradeship, “intense and loving comradeship, the personal and passionate attachment of man to man,” that Whitman declares to be “the most substantial hope and safety of the future of these States,” will then flourish.

Comradeship will purify the materialistic democracy of Whitman’s time. The personal and passionate attachment of man to man will have, so he hopes, a purifying and spiritualizing effect. Exalted male comradeship is the natural concomitant of true democracy, as Whitman sees it, and it has the deepest relations to politics. Moreover, without such passionate comradeship democ- racy is vain and sterile. In Democratic Vistas he offers a fully articulate vision of his dream:

It is to the development, identification, and general prevalence of that fervid comradeship (the adhesive love, at least rivaling the amative love hitherto possessing imaginative literature if not going beyond it), that I look for the counterbalance and offset of our materialistic and vulgar American democracy, and for the spiritualization thereof. Many will say it is a dream, and will not follow my inferences; but I confidently expect a time when there will be seen, running like a half-hid warp through all the myriad audible and visible worldly interests of America, threads of manly friendship, fond and loving, pure and sweet, strong and life-long, carried to degrees hith- erto unknown—not only giving tone to individual character, and making it unprecedentedly emotional, muscular, heroic, and refined, but having the deepest relations to general politics. I say democracy infers such loving comradeship, as its most inevitable twin or counterpart, without which it will be incomplete, in vain, and incapable of perpetuating itself.

This political dimension of comradeship was by no means new in Whitman. It had found full poetic expression as early as 1860 in “Calamus,” where Whitman fused the ethical and the political by promising a great democracy based on the indissoluble ties of comradeship:

Come, I will make the continent indissoluble,
I will make the most splendid race the sun ever shone upon, I will make divine, magnetic lands,

With the love of comrades,
With the life-long love of comrades.

I will plant companionship thick as trees along all the rivers of America, and along the shores of the great lakes, and all over the prairies,

I will make inseparable cities with their arms about each other’s necks,

By the love of comrades,
By the manly love of comrades.

For you these from me, O Democracy, to serve you ma femme! For you, for you I am trilling these songs.

(“For You O Democracy”)


In articulating this idea, Binns attempts to echo Biblical language. And, as if to complete his vision of a future world ruled by the love of comrades, in a dramatic eschatological style, he expresses his Uto- pian vision of how America and even the world will be transformed:

It is to comradeship and not to institutions that Whitman looks for a politi- cal redemption. He will bind America indissolubly together into the fel- lowship of his friends. Their friendship shall be called after him, and in his name they shall solve all the problems of Freedom, and bring America to victory. Lovers are the strength of Liberty, comrades perpetuate Equality; America will be established above disaster by the love of her poet’s lovers.

In contrast with Binns’s grandiloquent interpretation of the future society ruled by the principle of comradeship, others believe that what Whitman sought was a homosexual democracy with a not-so-spiritual side to it. To Zweig, Whitman saw “Democracy” as a “fluid, lawless, yet orderly exchange of feelings among ‘comrades,’ a network of intimacies on a vast scale,” so that in Whit- man’s mind, democracy could only succeed as an unimpeded flow of love of which the poet would give the first example with the open manifestation of his true feelings.

Again, the homosexual interpretation of Whitman’s concept of comradeship becomes almost unavoidable. If intense love between men became for Whitman the fundamental bond, interestingly half a century later Freud too would ground his idea of the communal feelings in the homosexual aspect of the erotic drives of men and women.

Though largely ignored for the wrong reasons, such a unifying understanding of Whitman’s ideal of male comradeship was indeed delin- eated by John A. Symonds.

In the December 1875 issue of the London Gentleman’s Magazine, there appeared an article, later quoted by Bucke in his collage book Walt Whitman (1883), in which Whitman’s concept of comradeship was compared by its erudite author to the exalted male friendships that were common among the Greeks of the classical period. The author, Arthur Clive, who wrote under the pseudonym Standish O’Grady, emphasized the fundamental role of beauty in those Greek comradeships:

In the days of Homer, friendship was an heroic passion [ . . . ] it was a powerful physical feeling, having physical conditions. Beauty was one of those conditions, as it is now between the sexes. In the dialogues of Plato we see the extraordinary nature of the friendships formed by the young men of his time, the passionate, absorbing nature of the relation, the crav- ing for beauty in connection with it...

There cannot be a doubt that with highly developed races friendship is a passion, and like all passions more physical than intellectual in its sources and modes of expression [ . . . ] [Whitman] speaks of the sick, sick dread of unreturned friendship, of the comrade’s kiss, the arm round the neck—but he speaks to sticks and stones; the emotion does not exist in us, and the language of his evangel poem appears simply disgusting.

To the peculiar rhetorical twist in the final paragraph, Bucke retorts: “Yes, ‘disgusting’ to fops and artificial scholars and prim gentlemen of the clubs— but sane, heroic, full-blooded, natural men will find in it the deepest God- implanted voices of their hearts.” In any case, O’Grady is obviously talking about homosexuality in Ancient Greece, which he presents to the reader under the color of a “heroic passion” which surfaces among highly developed races. The same idea was to be developed by John A. Symonds in his 1893 Study of Walt Whitman, and in A Problem in Greek Ethics (1901).  

In the section devoted to comradeship in his Walt Whitman: A Study, after reproducing some representative lines from the “Calamus” cluster, Symonds remarks: “The melody is in the Dorian mood—recalling to our minds that fellowship in arms which flourished among the Dorian tribes, and formed the chivalry of pre-historic Hellas.” Next, Symonds engages in excruciating rhetorical gymnastics for the purpose of providing an attenuated homosexual interpretation of “Calamus,” without at the same time betraying the stated will of his beloved master (i.e., that “Calamus” should not be read as homo- sexual poetry):

Whitman never suggests that comradeship may occasion the development of physical desire. On the other hand, he does not in set terms condemn desires, or warn his disciples against their perils. There is indeed a dis- tinctly sensuous side to his conception of adhesiveness [ . . . ]. Like Plato, in the “Phaedrus,” Whitman describes an enthusiastic type of masculine emotion, leaving its private details to the moral sense and special inclina- tion of the individual concerned.

Symonds advances his argument by speculating that the poet himself “appears to be not wholly unconscious that there are dangers and difficulties involved in the highly-pitched emotions he is praising,” only to add a few lines later that any impartial critic who reads Whitman’s poetry of comradeship will be drawn to the conclusion that the adhesiveness of comradeship is meant to have “no interblending with the ‘amativeness’ of sexual love.”

This notion of comradeship Symonds declares to be identical to “the ground qualities in the early Dorians, those founders of the martial institution of Greek love.” Yet, as if in another proof of conceptual indecision, or calculated ambiguity, he concludes that, despite his previous remarks, it is notorious to students of Greek civilization that the lofty sentiment of mascu- line attachment in ancient Greece “was intertwined with much that is repulsive to modern sentiment.”

In his introductory lines to A Problem in Greek Ethics, the reader is alerted that ancient Greece offers a unique example in history of “a great and highly developed race not only tolerating homosexual passions, but deeming them of spiritual value, and attempting to use them for the benefit of society.”

According to Symonds, while homosexual relations were not prominent in the so-called heroic age of Greece, it was nevertheless the love of Achilles for Patroclus, as narrated by Homer, that conferred in a later age of Greek history an almost religious sanction to the martial form of paiderastia. This episode in the Iliad inspired in later generations an ideal of manly love, which he describes as “a powerful and masculine emotion, in which effeminacy had no part, and which by no means excluded the ordinary sexual feelings.” To which he adds that the tie created by these relationships was “both more spiritual and more energetic [than] that which bound man to woman.”114 While Homer knew not about homosexuality, very early in Greek history, however, paiderastia became a national institution soon giving rise, according to Symonds, to a distinction between a noble, spiritual, form of masculine passion, which he calls “heroic love,” and a base and sensual one, which he identifies as “vulgar love.”

We are told, for example that Greek love was, in its origin and essence, mili- tary, an assertion which is reinforced by an extensive reference to the so-called “Sacred Band.” This was an army of lovers, literally speaking. The Sacred Band was formed in Thebes at the time of Pelopidas, and it consisted of a battalion of three hundred young men bound together by affection. Only couples of young lovers were recruited for this particular division. The Sacred Band was an elite corps, and it was considered nearly invincible. They were finally defeated by the Macedonians in 338 B.C.E. at the battle of Chaeronea, where they were all slain. Symonds also mentions how among the Spartans, a martial and warlike people, it was reckoned a disgrace if a youth found no man to be his lover.

According to W. S. Kennedy, Whitman had read about the Sacred Band of Thebes in Plutarch’s Pelopidas, where he found the inspiration for “I dream’t in a dream” and “What Place is Besieged.”
There is little doubt that the mar- tial character of Greek love would have deeply satisfied Whitman’s idealization of masculine comradeship.

Symonds writes that “the distinctive feature of Dorian comradeship was that it remained on both sides masculine, tolerating no sort of softness.” The idea that an aesthetic morality was at the heart of ancient Greek male comradeship is reinforced by the fact that the cities of Elis and Megara instituted contests of beauty among young men.

He informs the reader that Plato went as far as defining the highest form of human existence to be “philosophy with paiderastia” while others declared that the male form is the most perfect image of the deity, and that “supreme beauty is rather male than female.”
All these aspects of the concept of Greek love seem to perfectly spell out on a social and historical level Whitman’s aspi- rations for a democracy of comrades.

Although it took Symonds some time to overcome some initial “aesthetic repulsion” he felt toward Leaves of Grass, due to his “academical prejudices, the literary instincts trained by two decades of Greek and Latin studies, the refinements of culture, and the exclusiveness of aristocratic breeding,” the process of acceptance took only a short time, and soon Whitman “delivered my soul of these debilities.”130 And it was not just acceptance, Symonds was soon overcome by the most intense fascination with Leaves of Grass—and its author. He goes as far as volunteering the most extraordinary confession of faith in Whitman, whom he calls his master:

I may confess [Whitman’s religion] shone upon me when my life was bro- ken, when I was weak, sickly, poor and of no account, and that I have ever lived thenceforward in the light and warmth of it. In bounden duty toward Whitman, I make this personal statement [ . . . ]. During my darkest hours [Leaves of Grass] comforted me with the conviction that I too played my part in the illimitable symphony of cosmic life. When I sinned, repined, sorrowed, suffered, it touched me with a gentle hand of sympathy and understanding, sustained me with the strong arm of assurance that in the end I could not go amiss [ . . . ] For this reason, in duty to my master Whit- man [ . . . ] I have exceeded the bounds of an analytical essay by pouring forth my personal confession.

By the time Symonds wrote these lines, his fascination with Whitman was becoming an obsession, and he was beginning to entertain the fantasy of meeting him in the other world. As if evoking his master, he not only wrote a group of poems about “passionate friendship” between men but also took to visiting soldiers’ barracks and male brothels.

Symonds’s extraordinary devotion to Whitman points once again to the fact that A Problem in Greek Ethics was written with the purpose of offering some solid historical, moral and intellectual justification for Whitman’s ethics of comradeship.

However, one obvious question still remains unanswered: Why has Symonds’s inter- pretation of Whitman’s ethics of comradeship been systematically ignored, or, at best, overlooked by critics? The answer may partially lie in the fact that Whitman himself rejected the idea of defining himself as a member of a sep- arate minority within society, and that in order to stop Symonds’s incessant questioning he even lied, in his now famous 1890 reply to the British scholar about his relationships with women. This lie on the part of Whitman may have deterred some scholars, particularly early ones, from further study of Symonds’s theories. It was Symonds’s explicit mention of, and insistence on, the sexual aspect of camaraderie, that prevented him from obtaining Whitman’s full blessing for his theory, a theory that goes to the heart of Whitman’s ethics of comradeship." [Brasas, Walt Whitman and the mystical ethics of Comradeship]

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Dissecting the homosexual and the pedophile Tue Jan 07, 2014 6:36 pm

Advocatus Diaboli wrote:

I assume ancient Greece was familiar with strict homosexuals and called them kinaidos/malakoi (got from Bruce Thornton's Eros). It's a common-place that ancient societies mostly distinguished between active/passive and not necessarily between straight/gay as such - though the harshest opprobrium was attached to the man who submitted himself to being anally penetrated, i.e. the passive.

Incidentally, in this way, one might agree with the quoted communist idea of "superseding" straight/gay. I doubt Marxists are right to say that modern concepts of sexual categories and orientations are directly an artifact of "capitalist relations" or whatever (on a whim, I'd guess it's probably more connected with the rise of science and a scientific way of thinking about sexuality), but it is certainly true that different societies think of these things in different ways.


Greek pederasty should be defined in the context of a war or warrior culture; vigour, vitality, valour, virtue, youth, strength, beauty, ds., etc. made sense. It was an offshoot of warrior values, men/tutor-youths coming together celebrating Masculine values ultimately.

Modern homosexuality/pedophilia is men taking Relief from war, warrior values, from the times they live in, as an ends in itself. Its a Fleeing from being a Man into the arms of a child.

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
reasonvemotion

avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 638
Join date : 2013-01-09
Location : The Female Spirit

PostSubject: Re: Dissecting the homosexual and the pedophile Thu Jan 09, 2014 1:01 am

Quote :
Prepubescent boys, it can be argued, are undeveloped males...and this is how some have described the female sex.
So, a boy is somewhere between male and female, in an intellectual, psychological sense.

The legacy from ancient Greeks has created an ethos that rates "wholly feminine things of little interest, of little dignity, and little value."
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 17439
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 52
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Dissecting the homosexual and the pedophile Thu Jan 09, 2014 5:31 pm

reasonvemotion wrote:
Quote :
Prepubescent boys, it can be argued, are undeveloped males...and this is how some have described the female sex.
So, a boy is somewhere between male and female, in an intellectual, psychological sense.

The legacy from ancient Greeks has created an ethos that rates "wholly feminine things of little interest, of little dignity, and little value."
How is the above a low evaluation?
The value of a female is elsewhere.
A female is also a combination of ma/female attributes.
A male as well.
Some males, especially in this day and age, are more feminine in their thinking and emoting than above average females.
You can find a lot of them on ILP.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Dissecting the homosexual and the pedophile Thu Jan 09, 2014 5:40 pm

Lyssa wrote:
Advocatus Diaboli wrote:

I assume ancient Greece was familiar with strict homosexuals and called them kinaidos/malakoi (got from Bruce Thornton's Eros). It's a common-place that ancient societies mostly distinguished between active/passive and not necessarily between straight/gay as such - though the harshest opprobrium was attached to the man who submitted himself to being anally penetrated, i.e. the passive.

Incidentally, in this way, one might agree with the quoted communist idea of "superseding" straight/gay. I doubt Marxists are right to say that modern concepts of sexual categories and orientations are directly an artifact of "capitalist relations" or whatever (on a whim, I'd guess it's probably more connected with the rise of science and a scientific way of thinking about sexuality), but it is certainly true that different societies think of these things in different ways.


Greek pederasty should be defined in the context of a war or warrior culture; vigour, vitality, valour, virtue, youth, strength, beauty, ds., etc. made sense. It was an offshoot of warrior values, men/tutor-youths coming together celebrating Masculine values ultimately.

Modern homosexuality/pedophilia is men taking Relief from war, warrior values, from the times they live in, as an ends in itself. Its a Fleeing from being a Man into the arms of a child.




Quote :
"According to the law which Aiskhines describes in §§ 29-32, with selective verbatim citation, a citizen who was peporneumenos or hetairekos was debarred· from the exercise of his civic rights:

because the legislator considered that one who had been a vendor of his own body for others to treat as they pleased (lit. 'for hubris') would have no hesitation in selling the interests of the community as a whole."" [Dover, Greek Homosexuality]


Quote :
"Two generations earlier, Euripides represented in Antiope (a famous play in antiquity, but known to us only from fragments and citations) an argument between two legendary brothers, Amphion and Zethos. Amphion (the supreme kitharoidos of legend) is devoted to the arts and intellectual pursuits, while Zethos is a hard, tough farmer and warrior. Zethos reproaches Amphion (frr. 184, 185, 187):

"This Muse of yours is disturbing, useless, idle, drunken, spendthrift.

Nature gave you a stout heart, yet you flaunt an outward appearance that mimics a woman ... Give you a shield, and you would not know what to do with it, nor could you defend others by bold and manly counsel.

If a man possessed of wealth takes no thought for his house but leaves it neglected, and delights in music and pursues that always, he will achieve nothing for his family and city and will be no good to his friends. Inborn qualities are lost when a man is worsted by the delights of pleasure."

Amphion in his reply (frr. 190, 192, 198, 200) praises music and song, decries a philistine absorption in the management of an estate, and declares that brain does more to save a city than brawn. The opposition between toil, combined with athletic and military training, and artistic or intellectuc.l pursuits is a thread that runs through the history of Greek literature; obviously it is always open to people like Zethos to reproach their adversaries for effeminacy, since music and singing do little to develop the muscles of the legs, and their indulgence does not help to accumulate wealth. Phaidros in Pl. Smp. 179d is scornful of Orpheus, who according to the legend was not willing to die himself in order to be with his dead wife in the underworld; he was 'faint-hearted, as you'd expect of a kitharoidos'. Misgolas 's predilection for musicians may imply a distaste on his part for young athletes and warriors of the kind portrayed in earlier vase- painting." [ib.]


Quote :
"Yet some reasons emerge on reflection. Anyone would rather be good-looking than ugly; the attentions of an erastes, assuring a boy that he is not ugly, are welcome to him for that reason alone (the young Alkibiades felt 'dishonoured' [Pl. Smp. 219d] when Socrates did not try to seduce him), and the boy's glory is reflected on the father." [ib.]



[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Quote :
"The following examples have no obvious humorous intention, and may reveal unintentionally the 'penile fantasies' of their creators:

R177*, Orestes, advancing to kill Aigisthos, holds a broad-bladed, curved, sharp-pointed sword in a position where it covers his genitals and appears to be projecting from him;

R837, a spear, carried pointing half downwards, prolongs the line of a youth's penis, and its blade and blade-socket symbolise the glans and retracted foreskin;

R821, a youth holds a long javelin so that it appears to pass through the genitals of another youth;

B542, a Scythian with a bow, facing a hoplite, appears at first glance to be holding the hoplite's penis;

B588, Iolaos holds his club so that it looks like his own erect penis, and Herakles, fighting the lion, appears to have his scabbard going up his anus (contrast B589);

CW8, the shaft of a spear carried by a man arming, seems to penetrate the anus of a man bending over behind him, and in a scene of Theseus killing the Minotaur Theseus's sword prolongs the line of his penis;

B39, the spear carried by a man on a boar-hunt goes as far as the buttocks of his companion, then reappears so that its blade is like a formidable penis on the companion, threatening the boar;

B562, a man fleeing from a snake holds his stick so that he seems to be both erect and penetrated;

R525, a dancing youth so placed over a triangular motif that he seems to be lowering his anus on to a sharp point. The precariousness of inferring subconscious preoccupations from configurations of this kind is obvious enough, and not least because most of the configurations are created by perfectly normal ways of carrying spears and swords and wearing scabbards, but further exploration of the topic might be rewarding.

To say that Greek vase-painting was 'obsessed' with the penis would be to misuse a technical term which has already been devalued sufficiently, but the evidence considered in this section justifies the conclusion that Greek art and cult were extremely interested in the penis. It justifies also consideration of the hypothesis that the Greeks felt, however inarticulately, that the penis was a weapon, but a concealed weapon held in reserve. That a youth or boy should have a straight, pointed penis symbolised his masculine fitness to become a warrior; that it should be small sharpened the contrast between the immature male and the adult male and assimilated this to the contrast between female and male; a small penis (especially if the existence of the corona glandis is not betrayed by any undulation in the surface of the penis) is an index of modesty and subordination, an abjuration of sexual initiative or sexual rivalry, and the painters' adoption of the ideal youthful penis as the standard for men, heroes and gods is one item in their general tendency to 'youthen' everyone." [ib.]

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Dissecting the homosexual and the pedophile Thu Jan 09, 2014 5:45 pm

Halperin in 'One hundred years of homosexuality' too emphasizes the distinction between the ancient and modern practice in that the former was between active and passive, and not male-male relation. Although I think his intention is to take this in a gender as a modern "social construct" direction, this remains a valid difference. I have the most awful copy of the book;

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]



Quote :
"Gender, for Jack Abbott, is not determined by anatomical sex but by social status and personal style. "Men" are defined as those who "compete with other men in the pursuits men, among themselves, engage in," whereas "women" are characterized by the possession of"attributes that naturally complement masculine attributes"- namely, "a tendency to need, or depend on another man" for the various benefits won by the victors in '·male" competition. In this way "a natural sex emerge[s) within the society of men" and qualifies, by virtue of its exclusion from the domain of "male" precedence and autonomy, as a legitimate target of "male" desire. In Abbott's sociery, as in classical Athens, desire is sparked only when it arcs across the political divide, when it traverses the boundary that marks out the limits of intramural competition among the élite and that thereby distinguishes subjects from objects of sexual desire. Sex between "men" and, therefore, "homosexuality" remains unthinkable in Abbott's society (even though sex between anatomical males is an accepted and intrinsic part of ( the system), whereas sex between "men" and women" does not so much implicate both partners in a common "sexuality" as it articulares and defines the differemces in status between them."[Halperin, One hundred years of homosexuality]


[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Dissecting the homosexual and the pedophile Thu Jan 09, 2014 10:08 pm

Here are three social and spiritual contributors to the growth of unnatural affections, including homosexuality and pedophilia.

A Truth about a non-normative sexual disorders. A basic tool for identifying something as true can be found in nature. If something is based in truth, it gives more than it takes. This is how life continues. Logically, since mankind has existed, there has been male and female. For mankind to continue, a union of a male and female must produce at least two offspring which are capable and willing to produce offspring of their own. Since mankind has not only existed but grown in numbers, it is logical to assume that the union of a male and female producing more than two offspring capable and willing to reproduce is normative.

Now I'd like to switch gears and discuss the human soul. The soul is made up of the mind, will and emotions. These, and the actions they produce make each individual unique. When one soul has healthy interaction with another, their conversation is a symphony of two souls. If you apply the first tool of truth to this symphony, both parties should exit this transaction with more than they contributed. This begs the question, what is more to the soul? We will know the answer when we understand what the soul needs. Since we are discussing interaction, it should be something it cannot achieve on its own. So, what does the soul need that it cannot achieve by itself. Give and take. It can only give and take when another individual is involved. What give and take results in having more than you contributed? Intimacy! Therefore, the truth is that a healthy human interaction should involve some level of normatively appropriate intimacy. Using nature as the normative boundary, intimacy would be more or less sexual depending on the persons place in the cycle of reproduction. To young to reproduce, puberty, able to reproduce, not safe to reproduce, cannot reproduce, as a most basic set of categories. As souls are unique, some consenting variation should be considered normative. Within these interactions, reason suggest that some combinations will be more desirable than others. This would cause us to prefer one over another, or like someone. A strong or obsessing like agreeable to both parties we will call love.

Now for the power of "why". Why should one male and one female join together in a promise to forsake others and bind themselves together until death do us part? Should this be considered normative? What result, if any, gives substance to this union? Let's consider a basic family unit. Father, mother, son and daughter. Here is where I believe we have to examine the value of normality. Why is normal normal, is normal better and should normal be subject to a new normal? In a system of truth, normal should again give more than it takes. Normal should have a history of giving more than it takes and unless something different(proven by trial to be true) is added to the equation, normal should remain the norm. If this standard is broken or removed, anomalies will result as the soul seeks to fulfill its need for intimacy. These will be the non-normative disorders, including but not limited to reproductive cycle disparities, gender disparities and non-consenting disparities.
The basic family unit provides the environmental normality for intimacy as well as an environment for transferring that structure to the next generation, thus insuring normality. If this family unit breaks down or fails to transfer this norm to the next generation, not only will anomalies be created, but the resulting non-normative disorders will cascade for lack of a cure. Such a society in such a state will no doubt struggle to exhaustion seeking intimacy. Such a society would no doubt find co-dependence with others suffering from non-normative disorders more appealing than loneliness, even if abusive or short lived. A society headed down this path would likely come to believe many unsubstantiated rhetoric.

The second social disorder I see is unbridled lust. In a society of moral decay and decline, people are more likely to feed their lust. The glut of pornography and its easy access pervert the mind, filling it with unsatisfied desire which creates the perception that one needs more. Which is why a person who watches porn, will masturbate and then watch more porn. Lust is never satisfied, only self control can master it, and even then it is always calling one into deeper waters. Things that would have previously stimulated and aroused the individual are now boring to the desensitized brain.

The third social disorder I would like to present is the decay of spiritual evolution. When one submits their free will to their Creator, there is a transference of Godly DNA which changes the desires of a man. In his new state, he is given a comforter and a guide that is a constant companion. This connection with the Creator fulfills a majority of the need for healthy, trustworthy intimacy, and supernaturally restrains his carnal desires. In America, this healthy relationship with our Creator has been replaced by religious entertainment, political activism and commercialism, causing any person with basic reasoning skills to opt out. This has created a society with no moral markers to follow, allowing a wide birth for unnatural, selfish, illogical sexual practices.



Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 17439
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 52
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Dissecting the homosexual and the pedophile Fri Jan 10, 2014 8:52 am

The"disorder" - I call it dysfunction or unfit mutation - can be judged only in relation to the conditions which first enabled it to emerge i.e. nature.
Nature is a general term that can be used in many ways but ion this case it refers to the sum of all nurturing, or, more generally, the past.

The conflict, on a socio-biological level, is between this accumulated, 'deep' in temporal contexts, past, and the more shallow, immediate, past, which we call present.
The detachment, forgetting, dismissal, of the past, beyond an arbitrary point in space-time - dependent on the particular meme and its desired goal - is a type of retardation.
Amongst those taken by it it is felt as a relieving sensation, an enlightenment - not placing into the light but making of existence lighter, more bearable.

So, there is only a degree of past in conflict, because all understanding, knowing, is a "looking back".
In simpler terms it is Traditionalism versus Modernity, or History versus Progress.
Conservatism is a word describing a desire to conserve an already established order, in a reality where change is inevitable and requires no effort...change is time.
There are many kinds of conservation attempts.

With sex and sexual relationships the act itself is one of conservation. Sex evolves to deal with mortality, which is the attrition caused by time upon an ordering entity: an organism.
It is a genetic reordering, conservation of life, of a genetic past.
Modernity is transferring the focus unto the SuperOrganism.
The organisms become of secondary concern, despite being sold on the ideals that make them feel unique or individualistic.
This is a ploy to facilitate the degradation of the organism to the point where it can be integrated within the SueprOrganism.
Genes make way to memes.

Sex acquires a different dimension so as to make it a tool for propagating the mimetic ideals, ideas, principles, the SuperOrganism needs to maintain itself - it creates internal ordering.
The shift from organism to SueprOrganism, diminishes the importance of the individual emergent ordering (organism).
Female sexuality is diverted by first seducing her mentally, mimetically.
Men adapt, or are excluded.


_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Dissecting the homosexual and the pedophile Fri Jan 10, 2014 12:24 pm

DPro wrote:
Here are three social and spiritual contributors to the growth of unnatural affections, including homosexuality and pedophilia.

Now for the power of "why". Why should one male and one female join together in a promise to forsake others and bind themselves together until death do us part?

Are you implying homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, and not a genetic imprint?

Quote :
The third social disorder I would like to present is the decay of spiritual evolution. When one submits their free will to their Creator, there is a transference of Godly DNA which changes the desires of a man. In his new state, he is given a comforter and a guide that is a constant companion. This connection with the Creator fulfills a majority of the need for healthy, trustworthy intimacy, and supernaturally restrains his carnal desires. In America, this healthy relationship with our Creator has been replaced by religious entertainment, political activism and commercialism, causing any person with basic reasoning skills to opt out. This has created a society with no moral markers to follow, allowing a wide birth for unnatural, selfish, illogical sexual practices.

This is bogus. Christ himself was presented in the scriptures of the "creator" as neither male/female, or both male/female and if anything homosexuality as the blank state theory has its source in Xt. than any "death of god" theory.

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 17439
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 52
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Dissecting the homosexual and the pedophile Fri Jan 10, 2014 12:27 pm

In Christianity the proposition of a God, an absolute masculine entity, forces all biological males into the secondary position of emasculated males...representing what they are not.
It is the religious form of institutional emasculation.

In the secular form God becomes the State, Nation, system, the institution, the Ideology.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Dissecting the homosexual and the pedophile Fri Jan 10, 2014 12:34 pm

Satyr wrote:
In Christianity the proposition of a God, an absolute masculine entity,

Its the proposition on the part of the priests that's masculine or considering how its done through soft seduction, the tactic is really feminine,, the god himself is presented as beyond all categories.

Quote :
forces all biological males into the secondary position of emasculated males...representing what they are not.
It is the religious form of institutional emasculation.

In the secular form God becomes the State, Nation, system, the institution, the Ideology.

Exactly.

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 17439
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 52
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Dissecting the homosexual and the pedophile Fri Jan 10, 2014 12:36 pm

Lyssa wrote:
Satyr wrote:
In Christianity the proposition of a God, an absolute masculine entity,

Its the proposition on the part of the priests that's masculine or considering how its done through soft seduction, the tactic is really feminine,, the god himself is presented as beyond all categories.

Yes, but in monotheistic dogmas the entity of God is representative of order, the absolute...which is a masculine trait...towards ordering.

In paganism Deities are asexual, and are given a sexual identity to relate them to this ordering.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Dissecting the homosexual and the pedophile Fri Jan 10, 2014 12:45 pm

Satyr wrote:
Lyssa wrote:
Satyr wrote:
In Christianity the proposition of a God, an absolute masculine entity,

Its the proposition on the part of the priests that's masculine or considering how its done through soft seduction, the tactic is really feminine,, the god himself is presented as beyond all categories.

Yes, but in monotheistic dogmas the entity of God is representative of order, the absolute...which is a masculine trait...towards ordering.

In paganism Deities are asexual, and are given a sexual identity to relate them to this ordering.

Right. I am talking from the point of view of the "devout" to whom God is presented as the simultaneous trinity - father/mother/spirit which was orthodoxed along pagan lines into the symbol of a family unit - father, mother and child,,, but originally jesus was father [jehovah], jesus is mother [mary/madonna], jesus is spirit [holy ghost/angel], etc. The Blank state is featured here.

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 17439
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 52
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Dissecting the homosexual and the pedophile Fri Jan 10, 2014 1:41 pm

If God is Order, then his Creation, us, are malleable to His will.

This is where the idea of nature (the feminine), chaos, being ordered by an absolute Will comes from.
When God is secularized and redefined as the Idea(l), the institution becomes this power that can shape nature.
That's how we come to Modernity.

Surrender to God, becomes a surrender to the Institution, the idea(l)...there salvation is found. From nature/the past.
Through God, now the Idea(l) "liberation" from the worldly is achieved as a projected future, a Paradise now turned into an immanent Utopia...God as Immanence.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
reasonvemotion

avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 638
Join date : 2013-01-09
Location : The Female Spirit

PostSubject: Re: Dissecting the homosexual and the pedophile Fri Jan 10, 2014 4:28 pm

Satyr wrote:

Quote :
How is the above a low evaluation?
The value of a female is elsewhere.
A female is also a combination of ma/female attributes.
A male as well.
Some males, especially in this day and age, are more feminine in their thinking and emoting than above average females.
You can find a lot of them on ILP.


Woman differs from man in mind and function as yin differs from yang.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 17439
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 52
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Dissecting the homosexual and the pedophile Fri Jan 10, 2014 4:30 pm

And?

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Dissecting the homosexual and the pedophile Fri Jan 10, 2014 4:32 pm

@Satyr, I understand. But what this Order was, was

"For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." [Galatians 3]

New version has it as,

"There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

This "order" without any irony is beyond all category. Pure.

The pure "inner blessedness of heart", this Pure Love is what Whitman politicized his homo-Comradeship as "democracy of the heart" and the communists secularized into One Brotherhood.
They were continuing the "Creator's" Tradition.

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Dissecting the homosexual and the pedophile Fri Jan 10, 2014 4:37 pm

Ancient homosexuality as the "one-sex model":

Quote :
"Thales . . . used to say there were three blessings for which he was grateful to Fortune: ‘‘First, that I was born a human being and not one of the brutes; next, that I was born a man and not a wom- an; thirdly, a Greek and not a barbarian.’’

—Diogenes, Thales, 1.33

This expression of gratitude reported by Diogenes of the pre-Socratic philosopher, Thales, provides an apt gateway into the hierarchal world that we are about to enter. A person ranks higher than an animal, a man higher than a woman, and a Greek higher than a non-Greek; and, by the time of the Principate, a Roman higher than a non- Roman.1 To these oppositions we could also add that of free versus slave—slaves, too, were like animals, women, and foreigners insofar as they lived lives of submission. In short, understanding what it meant to be a man in the Greco-Roman world meant understanding one’s place in a rationally ordered cosmos in which free men were placed at the top and what fell beneath could all be classified as ‘‘unmen.’’

As Carlin A. Barton puts it, ‘‘one was ontologically a male but existentially a man. Born a male (mas) or a human (homo), one made oneself a man (vir). A vir was not a natural being.’’

In this sense, the body was ultimately not of primary importance in the achievement of ideal masculinity. While the male body launched one on the way toward this goal, it provided no guarantee of success. Indeed, from the an- cient perspective, the body lacked stability; there was no certainty that a mas- culinity earned was a masculinity saved. The specter of lost manliness, of a slide into effeminacy, was frequently raised before the eyes of the literate male audience.

Perhaps one reason this fear was evoked so regularly was that from an Aristotelian perspective, the male body did not provide assurance of being completely different in kind from the female body. Instead, the male body was viewed as the perfected, more complete body when compared to the female. As Aristotle explains:

In human beings the male is much hotter in its nature than the female. . . . It is due to this . . . that the perfecting of the female embryos is inferior to that of male ones (since their uterus is inferior in condition). (Gen. an. 775a)

So, too, writing in the second century c.e., the physician Galen comments:

Now just as mankind is the most perfect of all animals, so within mankind the man is more perfect than the woman, and the reason for his perfection is his excess of heat, for heat is Nature’s primary instrument. (On the Usefulness of the Parts, 2.630)

In other words, from the perspective of these influential authors, there was actually only one set of reproductive organs, ‘‘one sex,’’ as Laqueur argues.6 Biologically, in this view, the difference between male and female anatomy amounted to the presence of adequate heat. Indeed, pointing to the essential sameness of male and female reproductive organs, Galen encourages his reader to imagine the male genitalia turned outside in and the woman’s re- productive organs inside out. The biological implication of this thought ex- periment is that ‘‘instead of being divided by their reproductive anatomies, the sexes are linked by a common one.’’

The pervasiveness of this perspective can be seen in the way a Hellenistic Jewish writer like Philo readily assimilates this view in the context of his biblical commentary. Explaining the sex-specific requirement for the Passover lamb, Philo remarks, ‘‘Male . . . because male is more perfect than female. . . . [I]t is said by the naturalists that the female is nothing else than an imperfect male’’ (QE 1.7; cf. also Spec. Laws 1.200–201). One could hardly find a more con- cise statement of the Greco-Roman understanding of sex/gender categories. Maleness is associated with completion and perfection. ‘‘Female’’ is a non- category apart from its definition as imperfect male.8

For the ancient authors, the disturbing implication of this ‘‘one-sex model’’ of humanity, to borrow Laqueur’s term, is the possibility of gender slippage, particularly from male to female. If women were not different in kind, but simply a lesser, incomplete version of men, what was there to keep men from sliding down the axis into the female realm? As John Winkler has pointed out, the fear behind this question created an ethos in which the cultural polarity between the genders was made internal to one gender, the male.9 It was not enough to be clear that one was a man rather than a woman. One also needed to ensure that one was a manly man rather than a womanly man. As Maud Gleason argues, one’s masculine status had to be constantly maintained and proven through a demonstration of manly deportment. In her words, ‘‘Man- hood was not a state to be definitely achieved but something always under construction and constantly open to scrutiny.’’

Highlighting this link between body and character (or ‘‘soul’’), the earliest treatise on physiognomy posits, ‘‘For no an- imal has ever existed such that it has the form of one animal and disposition of another, but the body and soul of the same creature are always such that a given disposition must necessarily follow a given form."
Both the instability of the body and the danger of gender slippage can also be seen in this text, as the author notes, ‘‘It seems to me that the soul and body react on each other; when the character of the soul changes, it also changes the form of the body, and conversely, when the form of the body changes, it changes the character of the soul.’’
In other words, if one behaved badly, demonstrating weakness of character, the body would react in turn: it would become more womanly.
While sexual anatomy does not necessarily make the man, certain physical characteristics reveal him." [Colleen Conway, Jesus and Greco-Roman Masculinity]

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
reasonvemotion

avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 638
Join date : 2013-01-09
Location : The Female Spirit

PostSubject: Re: Dissecting the homosexual and the pedophile Fri Jan 10, 2014 5:09 pm


Satyr wrote:

Quote :
and.............


Quote :
The value of a female is elsewhere.



which is .............................................
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 17439
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 52
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Dissecting the homosexual and the pedophile Fri Jan 10, 2014 5:49 pm

In her representation of nature, and the Will to life.
Woman is what ground male ingenuity, imagination, spirit of overcoming in the earthly, in reality.
Woman is what forces man to deal, to cope, to endure.
Woman is the perpetual "yay- saying" as Ludovici says (echoing Nietzsche), to life.

It is men who are driven to the extremes, one of which is Nihilism, and its Marxism, Feminism, outcrops.
These masculine ideals seduce the lowliest, female - the sickly, the ugly, the desperate. These become females dedicated to annulling life.
They are women corrupted...dis-eased.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
reasonvemotion

avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 638
Join date : 2013-01-09
Location : The Female Spirit

PostSubject: Re: Dissecting the homosexual and the pedophile Fri Jan 10, 2014 8:27 pm

Aristotle argued by comparison to man, woman is "more mischievous, less simple, more impulsive ... more compassionate, ... more easily moved to tears,... more jealous, more querulous, more apt to scold and to strike ... more prone to despondency and less hopeful... more void of shame or self-respect, more false of speech, more deceptive, of more retentive memory and ... also more wakeful; more shrinking and more difficult to rouse to action."  

One could argue the reason why the Roman empire fell, was Roman men had become effeminate, unwilling to live a tougher, "manly" military lifestyle.

Although Ludovici rejoiced in Nietzsche's blasts at Christianity, he still believed that some of the Church's traditional teachings had originated in ancient wisdom and were therefore sound.

The Scriptures nominate the highest standards and positions for women.  On the other hand, the feminist movement degrades and exploits women, takes away their femininity and their role in the home and society.  It has for some destroyed a woman's "given" position and role, that of being a help mate with her husband.    And God said, It is not good for man to be alone.  Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.   1 Corinthians 11:9

It is logical to consider not only the differences between male and female, but also their relatedness.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
reasonvemotion

avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 638
Join date : 2013-01-09
Location : The Female Spirit

PostSubject: Re: Dissecting the homosexual and the pedophile Fri Jan 10, 2014 8:55 pm

Satyr wrote:

Quote :
Some males, especially in this day and age, are more feminine in their thinking and emoting than above average females.

You can find a lot of them on ILP.

One wonders why you contributed for so many years on that Forum.

Perhaps the reason was singularly........ amusement.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Dissecting the homosexual and the pedophile

Back to top Go down
 
Dissecting the homosexual and the pedophile
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 3 of 8Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
 Similar topics
-
» Dissecting Feminism in a nut-shell

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Know Thyself :: AGORA-
Jump to: