Sunday, January 16, 2005
History is replete with homosexuality. There's just very little notion of "gayness" in history.
Maybe you don't readily see the distinction, perhaps because it is the water in which you swim (modernity that is, not homosexuality). Most of Greek culture engaged in homophilia, or same sex romance. The (usually) younger object of desire could not be orally or anally sodomized, though (unless he was a slave), there could only be thigh-humping, for lack of a better term.
As in prison (or penguin houses), these men would have utterly rejected the modern idea of "gayness" as a socio-political status. The idea that their sexual attraction somehow "defined" them as human being was anathema to the classical man. Greek men loved each other because like in modern Arab society, women were shut away and relegated to reproduction and second-class status.
I'm reminded of the Afgan saying a buddy of mine brought back from there: "Women are for making children, boys are for pleasure." (eewwww, I need to boil my keyboard now for repeating that) He thought the idea was equally repellant, but it seems to be the norm in sex-segregated societies that men can be the object of desire, and retain their own honor (or the ones without hair on their legs in the case of the Middle East), so long as there is no (what now is called) "gay sex." Only the bitches the weak), poofs (effeminate males), and slaves can be penetrated.
In this type of environment, so alien to everything male Americans know and are happy with, can the idea of Lincoln or Alexander be contemplated.
What I'm saying to you is that your thoughts on the posibility of greatness in humanity are right, but slightly misstated, and colored by your preception of sexuality. A perception that has no basis in historical or human reality.
The ascendence of "homosexuals" in this current culture is really the triumph of the poofs. Effeminate homosexuals have redefined homophilia that has existed historically and in all sex-segregated cultures (even feudal Japan) to mean the homosexual behavior that was frowned upon everywhere and in all times. A drunken Greek male orgy (ick) was regretted in the morning and a source of shame, even as the romance of two Greek men (again, ick) was countenanced by the culture.
What I'm saying is that Lincoln and Alexander were not "gay" in the modern sense in any way, shape or form, because they would have found modern gays to be beneath contempt, and without honor, for being on the "receiving" end of homosexual activity.
To say Alexander was a mincing, effeminate, mama's boy (as befits the modern gay archetype, and Oliver Stone's imagination) is the height of ignorance and insult.
Posted by hobgoblin at January 14, 2005 12:28 PM
Wait! This just in from Slate! Hobgoblin was wrong! Regarding Lincoln that is...
The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln, the controversial new book by C.A. Tripp, argues that the Great Emancipator was gay. But close readers won't be surprised by this assertion: Incontrovertible evidence of Lincoln's homosexuality is all over his other biographies.
"He was always ... writing poetry." (Lincoln, by David Herbert Donald, Page 33)
"[T]hey noted ... how affectionate he was to kittens and other pets." (Lincoln, Page 55)
Lincoln to friend: "Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid." (Abraham Lincoln: The Prairie Years and the War Years, Page 120)
Lincoln to another politician: "I am six feet four without my high-heeled boots." (Lincoln, Page 251)
[more examples at Slate]
Aren´t we glad we live in homo-obsessed society and have homo-fanatics like Tripp to set us right. Finally Slate gets something right about homosexuality.
"Making a stink about Tripp's book."
Here's a damning article about C.A. Tripp's book "The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln." The article is written by an historian (Philip Nobile) who was at one time a co-author of Tripp's:
The book is a hoax and a fraud: a historical hoax, because the inaccurate parts are all shaded toward a predetermined conclusion, and a literary fraud, because significant portions of the accurate parts are plagiarized--from me, as it happens.
Nobile has a substantial legal dispute with the publisher, which must affect our assessment of his article, but he lays out his evidence well. I was particularly struck by this report of a phone call from AIDS activist and writer Larry Kramer:
"IF YOU DON'T STOP MAKING A STINK about Tripp's book, I'm going to expose you as an enormous homophobe," Larry Kramer telephoned me to say last October. "For the sake of humanity, please, gays need a role model." I replied that the book was so bad, it would backfire on the homosexual movement when reviewers and readers caught on to the fabrications, contradictions, and general nuttiness of The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln.
Aren´t we all so surprised? Isn´t it interesting the type of threat used here? It´s exactly the focus of many of the discussions I´ve been having recently on the subject. If you don´t subject to homosexism, you are full of hate. If you don´t lie, I´m going to bash you. You will lie, cheat, and corrupt for my agenda. And this is just a tiny, little example that came to light because Nobile is mad at having Tripp steal his writing. How many countless other examples such as this are still covered up?
Which brings up the point, is this a reaction to the fact that society is slowly but surely digesting the arguments put forth by pro-homosexuals and seeing that they are full of problems? Is it a sign that lying and distorting so many truths can only go so far, before it starts to crack here and there and over there as well? And why, oh, why do homo activists need to lie so much in the first place?
BTW, who was it that said:
You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.