Homoerotic Romantic Love: The Gay Passion
© 2007-08. D. Stephen Heersink, a.k.a., The Gay Species
Before we may understand the nature of romantic love, we must set the "background" from which romantic love arises. While many assumptions are necessarily assumed for convenience, it is necessary to understand that romantic love, and particularly homoerotic romantic love, is one species or type of love, and that all loves are, at their core root, a human emotion. Indeed, love is the principal and consummate human emotion which is often prized above all other emotions and values. Thus, we'll begin our look at homoerotic romantic love with a look at human emotions in general to provide our context.
Emotions: Basic Elements
The human mind exercises a variety of emotions. Emotions are different from "feelings" and "moods," although emotions may or may not be involved in either or neither. Emotions are a complex phenomenon, with fundamentally five synergistic elements: (1) behavioral expression, (2) physiological, or bodily functional, changes, (3) cognitive, or mental, appraisal, (4) stimulus invoking a response, and (4) a social context. These five elements in various degrees are interwoven into a single phenomenon that we call an "emotion." Obviously complex, at their limbic best, they are also our most primitive feature as organisms.
N.B. Emotions are almost always synonymous with "passions." For our purposes, the two words are virtually interchangeable.
Emotions: Types
Typical emotions are anger, love, hate, resentment, pride, revenge, humiliations, startle, disgust, and shame. Each emotion seems to occur spontaneously, without any predetermined deliberation or forethought on our part, by when arising, emotions provoke a response from us that is so dominant and central to ourselves, to our overall network of motives, beliefs, desires, and intentions, that we seem "carried away by them." Emotions are, indeed, this powerful, and then some. Some emotions are so powerful, that, if left unmoderated, the world as any of us know it would no longer exist.
What is Emotion?
One might think that emotions, as such towering infernos, are well known to those who profess to understand them. Surprise. Psychologists have never understood emotions. Religionists know how to activate them for prophet and profits. But, in terms of human emotion, only philosophers feel comfortable discussing this wonderfully unusual aspect of our human nature.
If you need, or want, a "definition" of an emotion, an emotion is a judgment of value.
Yep. That is what an emotion is. A judgment of value describes entirely what an emotion is, why it is what it is, and why we thrive on emotions.
Oh, I know, some gurus insist we should have no "judgments," that we should deny ourselves any and all archaic notions of "value," that we should simply accept ourselves as "facts," without any and all pretensions of "value," which only complicates crap into uncomfortable bullshit. These Freudian Analysts suggest we look at our anuses, at our tightened sphincter muscles, and let of mutilated genital deformation penetrate the "asshole" for the sake of a "howl."
However sad and pitiable these gurus have been, emotions are what make life meaningful. I know they deny "meaning" to anyone other than themselves and interpretations. I know they deny "self-worth" and "self-esteem" as "ego myths," which they inflate with phallic eruptions and getting off in other's holes.
I know they claim to cure "homosexual pathology" with the same Pavlovian Operant Conditioning, which gave Hitler a bad name, but gives these little pathogens a big ego. They enjoy giving themselves a Nazi-like hard-on, while raping their male or females "subjects" in bondage and discipline displays of pain, abuse, and hurt.
Without "values," indeed, without "judgments," these psyche gurus and child rapists feel they must compete with real humans in a real world. Who would dare judge their value-free, judgment-free sexual excess and license, unless they are simply whores?
Behind their paranoia and paraphilia, they see you and they enjoy each other as tormenting, denigrating, humiliating, and abusing each other for the power to overcome you're failed impotence. Through your bondage and discipline, through the power of sado-masochism, through using each others' fists, urine, scat, and fecal torment, you too adopt their mantra: carpe diem. Live for the moment. You agree that living "on the edge," but cut and sliced on life's knives, is like power only men who keep foreskin understand.
to make them feel good while you feel like crap, must seem as if philosophers do not understand the psyche guru's. We don't. We confess, none of us seek to kill our fathers in order to fuck our mothers, nor take any pleasure in raping and pillaging little weak boys as the gods' favorite.
, and other socially constructed aberrations are just their which then "direct" the emotion toward its particular resolution. Thus, emotions are generally a "sustained" experience over time of highly variable duration.
Emotions: Pleasure/Pain
Emotions usually provoke various degrees of pain and pleasure, usually in a dynamic of oscillating tension. For example, anger initially invokes mental, and sometimes physical, pain, but as the anger is resolved, a measure of pleasure over resolution follows. Commonly, a series of oscillating "reverberations" adjust our emotional perturbations gradually back to equilibrium, to a state of equanimity, or in the extremes of excess or deficiency. Pain is medically known as the sixth "vital sign," which humans and all sentient organisms seek to avoid. Conversely, pleasure is the principal human motivation to be pursued instead of pain.
Emotions: Perturbations
Some emotions are so potent, coupled with a difficulty in resolving them, the perturbation becomes sustained, as does the pleasure/pain. This sustained perturbation is itself a cause of either (i) distress and discomfort, or (ii) increased passion, in addition to the emotion itself. We often mislabel this compound perturbation-and-sustained-discomfort as "anxiety," which is too fear-specific, ignoring other emotional states. Therefore, perturbation is the appropriately-neutral descriptive name for an excess/defect of emotion.
Emotions: Source of Meaning & Value
Emotions convey, and confer, meaning to our life's experiences. The difference between a "digital" mind and a human mind, among many differences, is that a human mind features emotions, and these very emotions "charge" and "potentiate" our experiences with significance and meaning. Without emotion, meaningful experiences and value would be impossible. We would be reduced to robotic functionaries.
Emotions: Historical Approaches
Over the course of human history, individuals have approached our emotional lives with different ways of "taming" them.
- Plato uses the metaphor of the "Charioteer and Two Steeds" to illustrate Reason at the harness of Emotions and Desires in the Race of Life.
- Like his ethical axiom, Aristotle regards emotions as having excess and deficiency, and the ideal lies in the "mean" between the two.
- Epicureans encouraged individuals to practice tranquility (ataraxia) avoiding perturbations.
- Stoics encouraged individuals to ignore emotions through apathy, indifference (apatheia).
- Christianity considered emotions to be "brutish," animalistic, and foreign to the human experience for salvation; yet prized universal benevolence (agape) or charity, or altruism.
- Puritanism and Evangelicalism urged emotional suppression and repression, largely on the "brutish" conception. Pleasure is often deemed a "sin" or "vice." Pain and suffering is largely viewed as the "human condition" due to sin.
Emotions: Normative
Using Aristotle's model and the emotion of anger, for an example: We may become initially "hot under the collar" and then we address the provocation (frequently from a perceived injustice), and then "react" by searching for the "mean" of a means in which reason mediates between excessive and deficient responses, leading to a virtuous resolution: Either as retribution or restitution. Each retribution or restitution has its own "mean," albeit distinct. Hot tempers may stay inflamed and therefore "strike back" in violence (excess). Deficient gentle temperaments may suppress the anger and even direct it elsewhere, or simply sublimate it (deficiency). Both are vices. The "mean" (virtue) of the means of mediating emotion is determined by reason (value judgments) to find the "best" disposition and resolution of an emotion between the extremes of excess and deficiency (vice). Hence, the 18th-century philosopher David Hume identified "reason as passion's slave." Think of reason as our GPS through an emotional landscape filled with potential landmines.
Emotions as Virtues
Because emotions and their judgment values are integral to our "way of life" (ethos), emotions lie at the root of our ethical deliberation. Thus, the "mean" applies to both emotions and to our way of life being virtuous. Trustworthiness, amiability, fairness modesty, temperance, courage, prudence, justice, and other virtues have emotions as their catalyst, in which reason dictates which means is the most appropriate "mean" (virtue) with regard to an emotion's five elements. How we decide (or, judge) affects both ourselves and often others. As we stand to our emotions, so we stand to our virtues. (Of course, the converse is also true; emotions may act as vice.)
The Backbone of Love
The backbone of the emotion love is empathy, the biologically-endowed human capacity to experience an "analogous emotion" of another person in ourselves, and vice versa. This capacity through nurture and habituation is often increased, standing us in good stead with others. Similar words like sympathy, altruism, reciprocal altruism, etc., convey this basic sense of our ability to imagine the perspective (perceptions, feelings, attitudes, etc.) of another person. "I feel your pain," "I understand how you feel," express in words this common dynamic. Love builds upon it.
Empathy
Because of this remarkable ability to imagine ourselves "in another's shoes," we are capable of "sharing" in each other's feelings, experiences, attitudes, ideas, thoughts, etc., in similitude. We associate "like-to-like" by an analogous imagination, with empathy providing the foundation for caring about another person.
Example: If another person experiences adversity, we are able to empathize with his experience. We are even capable of sympathizing. If another begins to cry, we might cry with him. If another's anger is just, then it may give rise to shared anger in us. Empathy is "our social glue." It "binds" us to others enough to care for each other, and in many cases to care passionately about another, and in which the intensity becomes passionate, we are in the throes of expressing the emotion of love.
Empathy, Emotion, Love as a Virtue
The virtue of love is the emotion of our passionate interest, empathy, and care for another. This statement shall be our "controlling" idea of love.
So, we now have the five elements of an emotion, the various mechanics of "directing" emotions by reason to a particular resolution (or, not), through the ability to empathize with another, and when this empathy becomes passionate, focused, and durable, it begets the emotion of love.
Love's Names
The English language uses the word "love" to name a several distinct types of the emotion of love. Parental-child love, sibling-sibling love, love of a friend (filial), love of a place (attachment), benevolent love of others (agape), romantic love of a sexual interest (eros). These different types of love have different "persons/objects" of interest. All these types of love are incommensurate (not comparable to others). We love children differently than parents from our country from our friends, and from our "significant other" (lover, Beloved, spouse, boyfriend). The Greeks recognized this very fundamental variance.
Romantic (Erotic) Love
Romantic love is the consummate passionate erotic love of another.
Preliminary: English use of "eros" and its derivatives has come to mean "sexual desire." It's original use meant "sexual love" in Greek; it could also simply mean "desire." Similar words are "appetites" and "drives." Sexual desire and sexual love are not synonymous. But I'll stick with modern usage, and translate "eros" as sexual desire, and "sexual love" as romantic love, or interchange them. Sexual desire differs from romantic love. And it is important to know how it differs.Sexual Desire (Lust)
Our bodies and minds spark sexual desire within and without. A beautiful human captures our eyes, seductive bedroom eyes capture our imagination, sexual organs preoccupy our minds, our sexual organs and erogenous zones "perk up,"our sexual desire has been ignited. The other name for sexual desire is "lust." And, it is implanted in us by nature. For heterosexuals, it is the sexual desire for the opposite sex; for homophiles, it is sexual desire for the same sex. Rushing hormones fill our every cell, physical stimulation of our sexual organs wants gratification, our erogenous zones are on alert, and we urge to indulge in sexual pleasures, often culminating in "orgasm," the climax of the sexual desire. Welcome to nature. If nature disapproves of sexual desire, it sure did the opposite to conceal the fact.
Upon pubescence , young men and women go wild with sexual desire and mating schemes. The Dawning of Adolescence is the dawning of human sexuality. Our bodies are gushing hormones, our mammary glands and penises expand and become sensitive, men start to sprout facial and body hair, women begin to ovulate, men begin to ejaculate loads, muscles grow, women experience periodic menses. Welcome to the beauty, joy, splendor, and challenges of being a fully sexual being. As a dear friend states, "we've just been tweaked exponentially." The drive is on.
Self-Control
Sexual desire is innate, usually biologically intense, and often "driven" to resolution (e.g., "horny"). But sexual desire, however pleasurable and driven, is not always appropriate, as we'll discover. Once again, the "mean" between excess and deficiency enters our considerations and deliberations, along with "social factors."
For heterosexuals, rampant acting on sexual desire often results in the female's pregnancy, nine months of nesting, sixteen years of nurture -- all from one fuck. Women want "commitment" for their commitment. Males may want to pork senselessly, but females know better. Parenting, elders, educators, and peers advise most adolescents of their responsibility as a consequence of their acting on sexual desire. Unfortunately, such sage advice is always in a heterosexual context. 3% of us have a different sexual interest, and we know we cannot make babies. But that fact is left unspoken. Unsaid. "What about my homophile lusts," one asks under his breath? Well, we're going address homophile lusts.
Context Is Vital
Although the "rules" of heterosexual desire, mating, and bonding do not have direct correspondence to homophiles, to understand ourselves, we need to identify the paradigm and understand those differences, while significant, are not categorical. We can only hope some day we'll get equal mention with honesty. This is a step in that direction.
Sex, which only a male and female can have biologically, has consequences: nurture and support of progeny after birth has historically required pre-coital bonding of at least one male to one female to nurture the child's extended development over a minimum of twelve years. Thus, sexual desire is socially-controlled as well as self-controlled. (polygamy, polyandry, monandry, or various marital arrangements).
Beyond the biological and social costs of reproduction, the need for "commitments," we also recognize sexual desire is not like all other desires. It's uniqueness is due humans physically entering each other, sharing each other's most intimate and "interior" physical aspects of our bodies. Thus sharing sexual desire is not an "ordinary" activity, like eating and defecating, and by virtue of this uniqueness, sexual desire has generally been reserved for individuals of above-average formal (rather than casual) interest. To do less would devalue ourselves as humans.
Thirdly, individuals learn from elders that to act impulsively on licentious sexual desire, whether with a dedicated individual or with serial individuals, tends to diminish the "specialness" of sexual desire by redundancy, repetitive, and routine. For example, a seven-course French meal served four-times a day would lose its appeal pretty quickly after the third meal. If food consumption is regulated by self-control, likewise, even more so, sexual desire, which is just as valuable, is regulated by similar self-control
Fourthly, social customs inhibit impulsively acting on licentious sexual desire for the social and natural facts thus adumbrated. Some societies use various "authorities" to justify this inhibition. Political. Social. Familial. Religious.
Homophile Variances
Clearly, pregnancy is not a homophile concern. But some of us homophiles mistake that fact for the "door is wide open." If we cannot get each other pregnant, what's to impede us from gettin' it on 24/7? Besides, just what do homophiles do with each other, since we do not actually have sex? How do they do it? That too? Must I? How does it work? (Whetting your appetite only to defer.) We'll address these vital issues after some preliminaries. Even androphiles (males) and gynophiles (females) and ambiphiles (both orientations) vary according to their sex, as well as vary within their affinities for each other.
Virtue: Temperance
The inhibition of licentious sexual desire comes "together" from many impulses and forces under the individual's self-control. Self-control uses reason, emotions, will, etc. to mediate the appropriateness (value) of acting on sexual desire to achieve these various objectives. But the inhibitions that are most salient to heterosexuals are of little salience to homophiles. However, we do have our own set of homophile inhibitions that need to be addressed.
Clearly, other "factors" may also inhibit us from acting on the sexual desire, including religious guilt, public opprobrium, social shame, cultural taboos, lack of interest, lack of function, personality shyness, fears of others, etc.
In classical times, when homoeroticism was socially normative, the virtue (the "mean") of the emotion of self-control that lies between (i) licentious sexual abandon (namely, excess) and (ii) total abstinence (namely, deficiency), as determined by reason, govern homoerotic desire. Human sexuality is glorious, and it contributes to human flourishing. But, as important as homoeroticism is to males and females, it too has to be enjoyed with temperance.
The preceding paragraph is a mouthful. But it's critical one understand its sense.
In fact, the virtue of self-control is known as temperance. It is the "balancing" of our sexual desires to their "best satisfaction." Greek homophiles did not engage in serial anonymous trysts; they would have considered such behavior ignoble, injurious, and irrational. For them, sexual desires were an instrumental means to an end, not an end in itself. Sexual desire devoid of our judgments, emotions, understanding, comprehension, attraction, attachment would be considered "brutish" and a "devaluation" of not only human sexuality, but of being human.
N.B. The Greeks did not have a "morality," as Judeo-Christian-Islamic societies have. Their human conduct was regulated by "ethics," rarely "morals." While often conflated and treated synonymously, the two are very different. Morality proscribes behavior as an obligation due others (like the Moral Imperative: Do no harm or injury.). Ethics prescribes behavior to achieve human excellence (Do good, avoid evil). Nietzsche appropriately identifies the Judeo-Christian morality "herd mentality." Exactly! Morality is a "fail safe" defense against harm or injury to another, which ethics incorporates by a different approach: Exercising the practical reason to select the "mean" means to life's situations.Why Temperance? Especially for Homophiles?
According to Greek thought -- and Greeks were certainly proud homophiles -- pleasure is certainly a good, in fact, a chief good that drives our appetites. But appetites are only a part of our being human. Thus, indiscriminate pursuit of our appetites reduces humans to juveniles and brutes. Humans, unlike brutes, have emotions. We can reason. We can will to act. We can deliberate. We have moods. We have feelings. We form bonds. We communicate. In addition to instinct.
Therefore, to act on a single "brute" desire (appetite) of any single kind alone is a vice -- a deficiency of our human capacities that undermines our well-being. It ignores the complexity of the human being being human. We, therefore, moderate our eating, recreations, curiosity, pursuits, vocations, bonds, sexual desire, etc. to their proper equilibrium, to include as many human factors as possible for maximal fulfillment. Sexual desire is a chief physical good, but human flourishing (eudamonia) is humanity's consummate good. Often mistranslated as "happiness," eudamonia is far richer an expression that at least "human flourishing" and "well-being" do better to capture. (What, after all, is "happiness?")
"Tricking"
Serial anonymous trysts and liaisons are a modern phenomenon. Greek homophiles would have been shocked to behold such behavior. With the advent of birth control, the Sixties Sexual Revolution, and antibiotics, many males and females, especially male homophiles, began to act on sexual desire alone -- detached from all other human qualities. Hey, Liberation! Frequent STDs could be treated as of the 1940s, and the Pill, IUD, and other prophylaxes were successful in regulation reproduction. Starting after WWII, homophiles could congregate in bars and baths, the latter coming into full vogue in the late Sixties.
Whether the venue was the bar or the baths, certainly the baths presented "more produce to pick from the trees" spontaneously. Dressed only in a hotel towel (or less), dozens and dozens of anonymous physical contacts, eye contacts, and deeds were done in short order (efficiently). All very "releasing," but not very "satisfying." Often not very clean. And definitely not very healthy. It was common to see a cock one place after another place, substituted by another cock, and four of five of them all penetrating, until a new "nestling" began a new. Some guys did serial fucks, with upwards of fifty men each fucking the same guy.
They did far more than fuck, however. They spread each other's "sex" contagion. 98% of all STDs reported to public health officials (which is not 100%), and 95% of all public clinic reports of STDs, involved those who frequented the baths.
Fourth Street Public Clinic often had hundreds of "diseased" men waiting for their antibiotics every hour, leaving with an infected "trick" (despite advice to wait 7 - 14 days), and often were back in the baths that night, spreading more than legs. When AIDS struck, gay men struck back. (At least, and apparently, only in San Francisco.) We closed these hothouses of a lethal pandemic. We have a responsibility to not kill each other.
The epidemiology of HIV was alarming. HIV may have been the "line in the sand," but other contagion were mushrooming. Parasites. Bowel syndromes. Herpes. Hepatitis A, B, then C. E. coli poisoning. What about any of this made any sense? Killing, sickening ourselves for "free sex?"
One of the consequences of multiple partners is increasing the risk of transmitting dozens of communicable diseases, due strictly to probability theory and increasing the frequency of intimate contact, especially contact with air, vaginae, penises, rectums, etc. Semen and menses both carry a host of pathological microbes. Anal intercourse increases the risks of parasites cross-infection, three strains of hepatitis, human immunosuppresive virus (HIV), human papilloma virus (HPV), in addition to gonorrhea and syphilis. (All for a little cock and ass?)
"Free Love" Ain't So Free
Heralds of "Free Love" forgot to package their message with a warning that cigarette manufacturers now have to give: Significantly increases the risk of disease, including incurable, debilitating, and lethal microbes. The epidemiology of "Free Love" is staggering. Prior to HIV, gay and straight bathhouses were public health menaces of notorious breeding and incubating microbe explosions. Typically, anywhere from 1 - 20 encounters a single night, per person, multiplied by 2,000 patrons, per night, and even if only one individual was infected with a STD, hundreds could leave the baths with microbial company. Many individuals had multiple infections. Multiply! Exponentially!
With the advent of untreatable in incurable AIDS, the San Francisco Gay Community worked with public health officials to restrict and regulate bathhouse activity so severely that all the baths promptly closed. Officials discovered men who traveled would "hit" two to three baths a week in different cities, even different continents, as quick and easy place to "get off" or have a "quickie" or a "nooner" but left his host more guests than welcome. Some of the early HIV carriers boasted several thousands of men as "tricks." While it would not stop the pandemic, closure, reduction, and/or monitoring of activities in these "hot beds" of disease significantly reduced HIV transmission by more than 90%, coupled with public service programs of advocating safe sex. While increasing the number of partners increases the risks of STD, it still "only takes once." But NONE of these epidemiological factors address homophiles as human beings.
Changing Habits, Changing Focus
AIDS required different strategies from the Sexual Seventies. While men have always tended to bond with other men, the hubris of male conquests seemed to be a meaningless ego-boost. enough so, even if one died from it. For the first time, "dating" became prevalent strategy among gay men. If they were going to have sex, it might as well be with emotional attachment rather than with anatomical parts. This decade-long practice largely ended with the advent of antiretrovirals and online hookups. Safe sex, coupled with a a very risky serosorting strategy, kept things calm, until the beginning of this century. As of this writing, STDs have never been more rampant, nor HIV more widely spread since the advent of HIV, once again among gays -- startlingly. Are we insane?
Vice: Acting Against Self-Interest
This irrational behavior is often self-destructive and clearly against one's self-interest. Serious inquiries into this odd behavior, so unlike all antecedents, has philosophers, biologists, and enlightened sociologists baffled. ("Social Psychologists" have not a clue what they do, but rationalize destructive behavior -- against self-interest -- by a defect in nurture or nature.) Speculation is greater than substance, but the serious speculations include:
- AIDS still makes gay men feel even more vulnerable than ever; "why fight it?" -- accept the prognosis of young death, and carpe diem;
- Centuries of Judeo-Christian-Islamic homophobia turns into a form of self-loathing internalized homophobia, which accepts and expects gay self-destruction as divine justice perversely self-fulfilled;
- Many of gay men's "older" mentors are unavailable, since they are at rest permanently, who could and would counsel different behavioral choices;
- Commercial exploitation of gay men is legendary, and when a "commercial success" becomes the modus operandi de jour, it takes it toll in human life.
- Psychology, which birthed the sexual revolution, now refused to take responsibility for it, much less proffer any solutions. "If it feels good, do it," remains its very shallow mantra.
Licentious Sex vs Romantic Love
Within years before AIDS, many in the gay community recognized that being gay had more to offer than serial sex without meaning. Tricking left guys feeling a conquest, but not very satisfied. A sense of "using each other" became foreboding. Some of us turned to the Greek philosophers to see what we "missed." Oh. We forgot to bring our humanity to the party. We are not only sex objects, we are humans who have erotic encounters with each other. Calling each other "tricks" only devalued us as well. Are we just prostitutes and johns? Trailer Trash? Social Misfit? Reject? Doomed by gods? Waiting for our gay-bash end? By the mid-70s most gay men began bonding, recognizing that serial tricking may get one "off," by not get one very "far." There's more to life than "sex," "drugs," and "work." We want love.
But can homophiles actually love each other? Isn't that a "straight" myth? Larry Kramer, one of the self-appointed gurus of faggotry, certainly thinks so. If Edmund White's books and tell-all autobiographies are accurate, then he's a strike against homoerotic love, too. John Rechy's novel Numbers (hundred tricks in a weekend) suggested in its title that "turning tricks before age 30" is all there is to being gay. If the thousands of naked men "sexing" other naked men every night is evidence, then homoerotic love is a fantasy, an illusion, a "straight" paradigm, a hetero-normative and anti-queer social construction. It's just lust. Don't expect more. So say the gurus. Well, if they cannot find homoerotic love, they may be gurus, but not ones I urge giving much credence. I am absolutely certain of homoerotic love, have lived it, would not do without it, so don't set your sights too short, just because others have.
Other Views
Time columnist and philosopher Walter Lippmann foresaw the coming social changes that birth control, antibiotics, and devaluation of religion would have on a society in which sex did not entail reproduction of lifelong STDs. Havelock Ellis and Bertrand Russell took radical positions concerning the "coming Secularism" of which Lippmann tried to act as corrective, by heralding a "Humanism." Since "old time religion" would no longer bound individuals to phantom deities and tribal lords, much less silly commands, it fell to reason that begetting children alone justified marriage -- advocated many in the early 20th century. With science curing STDs, birth-control limiting pregnancy, psychologists and sexologists heralding "free-love" without feeling and commitment became a licentious mantra. The Phoenix rose. So did the Ashes.
In 1928, Lippmann predicted licentious libidinous and undisciplined hedonism would destroy the Humanistic renaissance, by creating a counter-reaction of religious fundamentalism (hmm, appears prescient, no?). Whether in the hands of Religion or in the Hands of Psyche's Gurus, the "herd mentality" would prevail, and the secular and sacred religions would war with each other. And between these two "herd mentalities," pendulums of conflict (like culture wars) would arise. Humanism would be undermined, as would humanity. Is Lippmann's prognosis right? He hoped he was wrong.
In one of the most revered books of the 20th century, just moments before the Great Depression, Lippmann heralded the Humanism of antiquity rather than sexual anarchy and licentious "liberation" for the obvious reasons, or reversion back to totalitarian and false religion. Seeking pleasure in others differs from seeking pleasure from others, he argued. Sexual desire alone is libertinism, while only romantic love expressed sexually is satisfying. Lippmann's work remains a towering social gem of the century. "Satisfaction," not gratification; "romantic love," not sexual license; seek pleasure in others, not from others. Use the Greek ethics, not antiseptic modern or tribal morality.
Religion vs. Psyche: The Demonic Twin Sisters
Lippmann was drowned-out by the Depression, Traditional Religion, WWII, and the New Psychology. But his Preface to Morals, 1928, remains a vibrant blueprint for the new Humanism, based on Greek values, in which to express the new-found freedom to sexuality and from the phantom gods and false myths. Bonding will continue, even if marriage is only for the sake of children. Lippmann's book is a testament to failure, critically acclaimed at its printing in 1928, and more applicable in 2007 than then.
Lippmann knew the odds against Humanism's success. Where cometh the profits? Anyone can access the humanistic tradition and values without consulting a guru, a priest, a rabbi, a psychoanalyst, support a televangelist. Little did Lippmann think about the profits of the Sex Trade. Instead of Humanism we got the Demonic Twin Sisters of Traditional Religion and New Psychology in a dialectic of culture clash. Augh! Esalen. Dr. Ruth. Jerry Falwell, James Dobson. NARTH. But no humanism. Homoerotic Love is built on humanism. It won't be found in scriptures. It won't be found in gurus' psychobabble. It won't be found in the culture wars. It won't be found on television. It can only be re-discovered, or re-birthed, from the one society that first embraced it, and endowed it with value. The Greeks not only founded Western Civilization, they show homophiles how to flourish as homophiles.
Human Nature via Nurture
In the final segment of this apologetically-extended installment, it is vital to break down another despicable and destructive "myth." Humans do indeed have a biological nature. We do not have "souls." We left metaphysics behind circa 1700. God died in the 1900s. Psyche Fucks are clueless. Get back to NATURE.
That biological nature is the sum genetics, traits, minds, personality, organs, interacting through the environment of air, water, foodstuffs, and interacting through parenting, schooling, indoctrination, politics, religion, etc. synergistically (interacting together). The Nature vs. Nurture Debate is a false dilemma! A hoax. A fraud. In large part to secure grants and financing of questionable "social" theories.
The fact is that nature and nurture are not a disjunction is, but a conjunction. The reality is we are Nature via Nurture. We have sabotaged ourselves (and by others) into believing the false disjunction, then fighting over what side of the divide who or what fits what. No divide exists. They interact. One is incomplete without the other. They are interdependent. Recognizing this truth will have enormous implication in our next installment on homoerotic love.
Conclusion
Next intallment gets into the nitty-gritty, as they say. But it is vital to "clear the ground" out from under us. The dead weeds of dogmatism and libertinism are suffocating the beauty of human flourishing. And Gay Men, Lesbians, and Transgender want just as much to flourish as to get laid. And we can and have done so. We'll address these issues next. We'll discover in our Gay Freedom and Pride the Joys of Homoerotic Love in order to flourish.
Postscript: No two television programs better represent gay life up until 1984 than Armistead Mauplin's Tales of the City (original series) and Showtime's Queer as Folk (except the sacchrine fifth season). Yet, the portraits they capture, differ by merely five years. And, they're both accurate. "Michael" in Tales was really the dominant gay persona in 1976, when the San Francisco Chronicle first serialized Maupin's tales. Yet, the five persona (character-types) in Queer as Folk reflect more broadly the complexity, diversity, and pluralism of androphiles -- of the times, and throughout the ages. N.B. the emotionally-unavailable "Brian" persona had come to be a persona of derision (real, but not attractive). Yet, his "heart" does make appearances. Neither protrait persists today, at least, not in San Francisco, but it is great social history at the advent of Gay Liberation, and I commend the ventures that bought both programs to television (Tales was censored in many parts of the PBS network just ten years ago, and is replayed endlessly on Logo.) I mention it because it gives a "background" for further comments.
The virtue of love is the emotion of our passionate interest, empathy, and care for another.
Romantic love is the consummate passionate erotic love of another.This is it. We'll enter the core domain of homoerotic romantic love. Those who have already experienced it will recognize it instantly. Those who have yet to experience homoerotic romantic love may find some of the words "odd," unclear, having no correspondence with experience. So, my strategy to bridge both types of readers is to place the "key terms" in the headers and highlighted print, and use the paragraphs to flush-out the fullness of of language, already "loaded" with significance.
A final preliminary: Every individual is different; every individual's history is different; every individual's context is different; every individual's potential is different. Add to these highly variable elements three logical variations: The Possible, the Probable, and the Necessary. No necessity to homoerotic romantic love compels anyone, merely a desirability to experience its extraordinary joy. Secondly, the probability is contingent on two distinct and unique individuals "fitting," "adapting," "molding," each with their respective "self-histories," personalities, maturity, flexibility, etc. In some rarer cases, the possibility of homoerotic romantic love is virtually unlimited, but some people, often due to factors beyond their control, may lack certain elements it requires.The Core of Homoerotic Romantic Love
Identifying Oneself in and through Another Person by the Bond of the Dialectic of TogethernessThe Bond of the Dialectic of Togetherness
By "dialectic," I will use its various senses, because they all apply. Etymologically, dialectic simply means a formal argumentation (in the classical, not in the vernacular, "fight" sense). A dialectic is the formal presentation of different views, supported by logic, evidence, emotions, and other factors, passionately advocated from which differing views find understanding, and thus lead one and the other "to see each one's point of view."
This sense perfectly applies to homoerotic romantic love. Two individuals (rather than ideas) of differing traits, histories, personalities, maturity, abilities, etc. (rather than perspectives) bond (individually and jointly give evidence to support their bond).
The word dialectic is often used to suggest "a dynamic of tension" as in give-and-take, back-and-forth, up-and-down, etc. This "dynamic of Tension" is a perfectly apt description.
Dialectic, in Hegelian Idealism, has the special meaning of a "thesis (pro)" and "antithesis (con)" resolving into a "synthesis (a new understanding)." While Bankrupt philosophically, this Hegelian sense of dialectic also applies perfectly for our descriptive purposes, just as if two individuals, say "pro" and "con," find homoerotic romantic love in "compromise."
"Togetherness," I assume we all basically understand. Two-gather-nest. Come-to-gather.
The Bond
The "Bond" can be used metaphorically like glue, cement, or atomic action (as neutron and electron attract in perpetual motion). In biological and mental terms, the necessary bond is "empathy," the "analogous emotion," the natural ability to imagine in ourselves how the other thinks, sees, feels, believes, hopes, etc. Empathy can be "cultivated" in addition to being biologically hardwired in us.
Empathy is the most important "bond" of the Bond of the Dialectic of Togetherness. It gives togetherness its attraction, its flexibility, the ability to understand separations, and with skill, it use often works to draw-back that which draws-away. The durability of most homoerotic romantic loves is directly proportional to the respective measures of each one's empathy. It is vital, therefore necessary, that mutually-reciprocal empathy be well-developed in each, and between each, individual.
Moreover, while some degree of empathy is nearly always operating in our bond, it needs to be turned "on" to its highest vis-a-vis each other. Indeed, it should never be less than "full-throttle-on." Empathy's uses in bonding are immense, frequent (if not nearly incessant), and the "bond-preserver" in rough waters. If one or the other individual lacks sufficient empathy, the Bond of the Dialectic of Togetherness is unlikely to "stick." And, while empathy is a vital precondition to the Bond, it is equally important to cultivate empathy in oneself and in the other without end.Other "bonding" agents also play important roles. The bond of erotic intimacy. The bond of affection. The bond of shared interests. The bond of similar values. The bond shared pursuits, objectives, of shared friends, enjoyments, etc. Each plays a different measure not only in each Bond, but at different times, in different situations, in variable degrees, and variable importance. For example, the bond of erotic intimacy may grow "deeper" in intensity, but begin to occur with less frequency, or vice versa. Ditto with all the other "bonding agents," in a perpetual dynamic of tension and change, just as the Dialectic of give-and-take requires.
I hasten to add that the dynamic of tension "as it comes naturally" is often sufficient, if not oftentimes a bit too abundant, that any temptation to create tension deliberately to "spark conflict" is ill-advised. On rare occasions, "lighting a fire" under the Beloved may get him to jump, or it could immolate the Beloved, and you, and dissolve the Bond. Tread very carefully before deliberately provoking "tension" to get a "reaction." You, or he, or both may not be able to direct the consequences to a desirable conclusion.
Identifying Oneself in and through Another
I've deferred the antecedent phrase, simply because it is rather straight forward and nearly self-explanatory. By "identifying," we need to understand is that we do not adopt each other's identity. Rather, we re-form our own identity through and in the other, and vice versa. The dialectic provokes, stimulates, energizes, and in that dialectic we are each, and both, "creating" two new "identities," as each of the Beloveds adapts, responds, and stimulates the other Beloved by a "back-and-forth" interaction that engages us as distinct individuals, and changes us into more loving, caring, supportive, nurturing, etc., individuals in which to enjoy each other.
Another way of illustrating this aspect is the expression of "walking in each others' shoes to their next destination," and next, and next. Neither Beloved could imagine not "seeing himself through the other Beloved's eyes." Neither Beloved abandons his own identity, rather he enhances his own identity through the perspective he sees in and through the other. Each Beloved "looks into his Beloved's eyes and sees his own reflection refracted by the light of his Beloved." Each sees the other in and through the other's eyes. Intuition is common. Anticipation comes spontaneously. Each Beloved sees his own identity ONLY as it is seen from the other Beloved's reflection and perspective. Their identities remain distinct, but their identities takes on a prismatic spectrum of the other's identity.
Just as "gay" identifies by name a set of descriptive statements individuals who accept the name as one of their identifying characteristics, so too, the Bond will identify each of one of us by perceiving ourselves in and through the other. Moreover, the Bond itself shares in the identity that sets apart the Beloveds as a couple (or in a bond). The "name" for this identity is free game, because it will always be "unique" to the two of you. Any other Bond, even another Romantic Love Bond, will have a different "name" and "identity." Not only is one's own identity being changed by the other, and the other by us, but the Bond itself is "taking on its own identity" is its own, two, unique and dynamic members live it.
Frankly, while any "name" suffices, I personally dislike "marriage," and detest "civil union" and "domestic partnership," both of which are anemic and diminutive names for an extraordinary Bond. Moreover, "marriage" is so corrupted by heterosexuals, so encumbered with governmental laws, that it connotes only negative associations. But this naming is a personal matter, and in the scheme of things of relative little linguistic importance. Beloved and I refer to us as a "couple" and our Bond as a "bond."
Out-take on Language
Similarly, it may seem harmless to call each one's Beloved "husband," but it is thoroughly inappropriate. Husbands have a definite "gender" and "patriarchal" and "master" connotative bias. So, while Beloved calls himself "mom" to our cats, and I refer to him as "mom" when addressing our cats, as "their," not my mom. I cannot bring myself to address him as "mom," except in a deliberately coy way, meaning he is nurturing (as is often associated primarily with females), because neither of us identify the other in any other terms as two gay, virile, hunky, and self-identifying men, not just males -- and definitely not queer.Amplifications & Qualifications
Language colors our perception of the world and ourselves, otherwise "nigger" and "queer" and "trick" would not be terms of derision and disrespect. (Queer Theory either misunderstands language, or misunderstands social constructionism, or has simply been seduced by the Tribalist PostModernist "bullshit" to have adopted the "queer" moniker except in a deliberately "transgressive" and "perverse" sense as "unfit." Getting one's head out of Tribal theories and into actual linguistic use and abuse would reveal the error of their preposterous, and hardly innocuous, claims.)
The Bond is most assuredly not a stable state a couple achieves or attains, rather it is the precondition that gives Beloveds the foundation in which to form and continue in a highly dynamic and variable interaction of relative tension. In fact, the Bond of of the Dialectic of Togetherness has a sort of "baseline" with ebbs-and-tides, gives-and-takes, ups-and-downs, pleasures-and-pain, etc., in a constantly active dynamic known as the "phase transition." A healthy homoerotic love is vibrant, dynamic, interactive, fluctuating, oscillating, in a sort of "tug-of-war" between warriors in love. To illustrate this dynamic, we'll use this graph:
The center horizontal baseline represents the "ground" to which the dynamic seeks to keep itself oriented by the love, and the changes plotted in fluctuation above and below the baseline are to be expected, often encouraged, as the bond attempts to keep itself "centered" by not "static." The dynamic may be highly vacillating or moderately so, and even come to periods of rest on the baseline. Seismic earthquakes of the dialectic can throw the dynamic into the extremes, which may manifest in a "fight" or "heated argument" and "passionate feelings" raised exponentially.
One Beloved acts that provokes the other Beloved to react, who then reacts, and so on and so on. This dynamic is the very dialectic that the Bond invites. The baseline is the bond. The activities are done in togetherness (not necessarily "together"). One of the central commitments between Beloveds is to accept moderate "fluctuations"are evidence of a "healthy tension." But the "jolt" occurs, occasionally, usually provoked by one of the Beloveds, the other attempts to bring the "tension" back into a moderate range.
To do this, every individual must bring skills to the Beloved (not to the "relationship") which ameliorate these "jolts" back into acceptable range, not to mention to minimize their recurrence. Now, to the skills that make this Bond stick, the Dialectic effective, and the Togetherness last. These skills will be examined in the series' next post.
Empathy, Again!
We often hear of reciprocal altruism, benevolence, altruism, sympathy, and similar words used almost synonymously. These words are definitely related, because they are all grounded in empathy. Empathy is both a biologically-hardwired as well as a cultivated human capability. It is an "emotion" in our mental scheme of things, rather than "reason" or "desires." Adam Smith called it our "analogous emotion," the phrase I've never found bettered.
Analogies are like-to-like comparisons. 90% of our knowledge is achieved by analogy, by associating new information with previous "like" information. Like-to-like. It's so basic to who we humans are, occult psychology still has not discovered it. Yet, Aristotle, Plato, and Epicurus speak of it. The Golden Rule presumes it. 18th century philosophers Hume, Smith, Reid, hail it. Darwinian biologists confirm it. Empathy, our "analogous emotion," is our "social glue." It's our ability to imagine in our own minds what another is thinking, feeling, desiring, etc., by associating our observations with what we might do in similar situations.
One cannot "do unto others as one wants done himself," if one cannot imagine what the other person wants done. Empathy is that imaginative capacity, that "analogous emotion," that allows us to interpret others' thoughts "as if they are our own," by observing their behaviors, and then imagining how we would respond if we were experiencing what we are observing. Most primates and many other mammal show evidence of a similar capacity, perhaps diminished without reason and emotion. But the "imaginative" aspect is clearly operating even in the most diminished of human minds.
Working with Down Syndrome individuals, one becomes alive to their "uncensored" analogous emotion of empathy. Reason, diminished in Down Syndrome, does not censor their analogous emotion the way it does in the higher-reasoning of most adults. Anyone who desires to cultivate their own empathy may profitably do so by interacting with Down Syndrome individuals. (We 35 gay guys became five times the size of our beneficiaries, for the sheer joy of reveling in their joyous uncensored empathy. We learned more from them than I can ever share.)
Empathy is not an option in life. It's vital. The "more of it" everyone benefits. And "contact" with other humans requires it. Otherwise, it atrophies, remains uncultivated, becomes dormant. One of the serious problems facing many of our youth is their lack of empathy, not for want of desiring it, but because they use electronics to communicate, and electronics don't have "emotions." They use "txt msg" to communicate, eviscerated to a minimum of symbols, lest they be misconstrued: "C u 2-p?" means "may I see you tonight?" Great shorthand, but without any expressiveness.
The "analogous emotion" of empathy comes entirely through social interaction unimpeded by proxies. It has to be experienced directly! It can only be cultivated through social interaction. Yes, then it can be experienced vicariously. Then it might find its "home." Without a fully-developing dose of empathy, kiss a romantic bond off. You can be "fuck-buddies," but homoerotic romantic love is impossible without a healthy portion of empathy at the start, and cultivated throughout. There is no "go" without it.
Flexibility.
Empathy provides the ability to be flexible. Without empathy, apathy (indifference) has to substitute for flexibility. And flexibility is absolutely essential in a Homeoerotic Bond. Two individuals are not "glued together," but they must be "loosely linked" enough to care passionately about each other, but separate enough to remain individually-distinct. Apathy is not flexibility. It's a poor substitute, and usually diminishes the Bond. Apathy is "disinterestedness." Flexibility is not "disinterested," it is simply the ability to "allow" the EXCESS passions to be channeled to the "pot of over-abundance."
In a Bond, every single nuance of your Beloved should provoke "interest." Perhaps, intense, scrupulous, focused-like-a-laser interest. Maybe an obsessive interest. Like an all-consuming interest. Like an almost unhealthy jealous interest. A possessive interest. These and like forces should be bursting onto the scene, or the spark ain't there.
Flexibility is the "channeling" of the excess to side channels, lest we become consumed. And romantic love is "always an excess." That is why it differs from all our other emotions. The other emotions we "turn-down" through moderating reason (the "mean" I've belabored). Romantic love is NEVER turned down. That quells the fire. So, we ADD flexibility, rather than try to "tame" the flames. This is the ONE and ONLY time ethics recognizes NO MEAN. In all our other loves, perhaps. But not in romantic love. EXCESS is precisely its raison d'etre. It's joy. It's elan. It's vitality.
And look at our behaviors when we "fall" or are "smitten." We're out of control, consumed, preoccupied. Nothing is more important. Can't sleep. Can't focus on anything else. Horny to the nines, but for HIM. Romantic love IS all-consuming. It will go through different stages, like the infatuation stage I am describing, but if one is not infatuated into irrational frenzy, love has yet to kick-in. It does not need to be at "first sight." It may "creep onto you," but you should feel it consume you. And, I mean "consume" you.
Rather than tame these flames, we ADD flexibility. One of the ways we ADD flexibility is by "cutting some slack" to ourselves and our Beloved that we might not cut to others. Another way we ADD flexibility is use different language, but only for our Beloved. Another way we ADD flexibility is diverting the "going-off half-cocked" into other channels. Another way we ADD flexibility is to add time before we POUNCE (attack, criticize, or flame). Another way we ADD flexibility is to "let it pass," even against our strongest desires to do the exact opposite. Another we ADD flexibility is to create a "mythical bank" of EXCESS emotion spillover, so we don't drown our Beloved with ALL our EXCESS at once. (You'll need to purge the bank every once in a while, or resentment will ferment.) Another way we ADD flexibility is to admit to all possibilities, however hard that is to conceive, we concede that we are flexible enough to admit all sorts of sea-changes ahead -- at least conceptually.
Flexibility is not suppression, it's redirection and rechanneling of our EXCESS passionate energies. Wonderfully-inflamed, all-consuming, passionate energies. So passionate, that if not redirected, will immolate ourselves and each other. But we would not want to suppress them, assuming we could, so we redirect them. So, flexibility is a "redirection" skill that diverts some of the EXCESS into storage, off center stage, maybe for retrieval later, or purging, if the EXCESS is no longer needed. But, we never resort to apathy, indifferent, or disinterestedness to "stifle" the exuberance of romantic lofe.
Communication.
Humans, and ONLY humans, have semantics. Notice I did not write "language." Other animals and even computers have "language," however primitive or sophisticated, but none have, nor ever will have, semantics. IT people have tried to simulate it, but so far have failed. Semantics is more than uttering vocal sounds, following a Boolean algorithm, reproducing symbols, even using ostensive denotation (pointing to "this" and naming it). Humans and their language coveys "meanings." More accurately, out utterances may evoke "meanings," rather than convey them. Names for concrete objects, like "George W. Bush," may point to an asshole in D.C., but that he's an "asshole," evokes a plethora of meanings. In Bush's cases, so many different "meanings of asshole," the set is almost inexhaustible. For every asshole meaning I can describe, others can find ones I missed.
Language, fundamentally, names objects and sets of descriptive examples of general kinds. But it also evokes meanings (plural). No one can duplicate those "meanings" in us. We might be able to simulate some of them, but it will always be a distant simulacrum. An easy, however, over-used example is "evening star," "morning star," and "Venus." All three name the same thing (referent), but each mean three different things (sense). In this case, they're "referentially opaque," in other words, they all "pick-out" the same physical phenomenon, but each expression means something slightly different. The "morning" means something different than "evening." And each meaning is not "fixed" by a definition. One simply cannot "define" anything. We name. It's known as nominalism, for the nerdy types, like me.
So, the art of communication ain't so straight-forward as some of our lesser minds suggest. Chemistry has resorted to symbols, physics to numbers, to "minimize" extraneous meanings. It's simply a necessity. So, how does all this affect our Bond. ENORMOUSLY.
For one thing, the "problem" of extraneous meanings. For another, "reading between the lines" (see, computers will never be able to do that). For another, "hidden" and "unintended" meanings. Anyone who thinks language and communications skills are something someone "masters" has not encountered social constructionism; in many ways, language masters us.
For the second thing, Beloveds are already on "high sensitivity" sensibility. Our "ordinary" language in our daily lives suddenly becomes "extraordinary" language between Beloveds. Not only are meanings, intended and unintended, flying all over the place, but their intensity is on "FULL VOLUME." When you thought you said, "would you mind getting that door for me," he hears, "what, do you think I'm your slave or something." Now, I bet you did not have "slaves and masters" in mind when you said that, did you? You had a "door," someone "at it," and "open" it for you in your stead, didn't you? Where did this "slave/master" motif come from?
Semantics! Now, do I have your attention? Anyone who believes they can master the art of communication is a fool, because no one can determine the recipient's meanings. In 1973, I wrote a paper for a Rhetoric Course, where I found nearly identical sentences uttered by Pope Paul VI and Nikita Kruschiev. Do you think these two men meant the same MEANING as their identical words suggest? Hardly! Head of the Religious Vatican and the Atheist Communist U.S.S.R. both stating the same MEANING? But they used the SAME words (or at least their English translators did).
Ordinary language of everyday is NOT appropriate between Beloveds for all these reasons. Every word, every gesture, every glance, every act is TWEAKED already, using ordinary language in this minefield is inviting warfare.
But communication is NOT confined to verbal utterances. In fact, the volatility of oral and written language is probably the least reliable and accurate means of communication. Our body's physiology also communicates. My Beloved never has to "tell" me he's stressed, his TMJ muscles start to flex. Even when I ask, and he says, "no, nothing is bothering me," I know he's lying. He finally relents, and then we "talk" about what's stressing him. I don't need to ask him if he "came?" The whole block knows when we do. I don't need to inquire why something I like does not please him; his body's response tells me. So I don't push it. Conversely, he knows simply from my bodily responses that I thrive and what he himself has little interest in. When "yours truly" did not venture into one of his "erogenous zones," he didn't talk to me about it, he caressed my hand and lead it to its desired destination. I get it now. Not one word spoken.
Some guys, who'll I'll identify derisively as "narrators," don't talk sweet love to their partners, they act like John Maddens, giving a blow-by-blow self-report of the action on the field -- except the two of you ARE the field. I don't need a play book report of what we are doing, so why does he? Usually, kissing will shut the fucker up. If not, they can find a job in the NFL (not that foolish in love).
Communication also occurs through "gestures." I'm not referring to body language, but in "acts of devotion." A card. A flower. Supper out. A bottle of champagne together, for just the TWO of you. Listening to music that speaks FOR you. One friend of ours sends his Beloved flowers at work from "an admirer" every Tuesday. His colleagues and staff are insanely jealous! And he's done it for 26 years. Now that's communicating!
Trust.
Boy. Don't break this one! Breach of Trust is nearly always fatal. If one cannot trust the one person one loves more than anyone else on the earth, who can one trust? I suspect many people have a very shallow conception of trust. It's far more than telling the truth when asked for it (although that is included). It's "being there" when no one else can be counted on. It's support, even when everyone agrees one is in the wrong. It's being "available" 24/7, always.
One hears frequently the expression "build trust." I think that's wrong. Trust is presumed. A precondition. It can only be broken. It cannot be "built." Trust is the ABSENCE of breach, loss, break, deceit, defraud, etc. It's not something one "creates," it either is or is not. That's why it is so important to avoid all breaches of trust rather than try to hide or conceal other breaches. Those other breaches can be repaired, rehabbed, healed. But Trust, once broken is hard to regain. Notice the word, "regain." That word suggests it is not developed, fostered, etc. , but ASSUMED precondition -- until proved otherwise.
Since I consider Trust a DEFAULT of precondition, I cannot describe what it IS. I can only describe its LOSS. Trust is the absence of serious breach. It's the only way I know how to share what I think it is. Otherwise, it is PRESUMED. And I don't know how one "builds trust." I know how one repairs hurt. But a Breach of Trust is not something one can "rebuild" unless one means not breaching it again.
Reasonable Compromise.
In the Dialectic of Togetherness we have two people in passionate romantic love. As a general rule, the word "compromise" should not surface, unless two heads are absolutely too fuck'n stubborn as to be inflexible. Compromise means "giving up" for peaceableness. And I suppose fractious, domineering, and demanding individuals may have to learn the art of compromise, but it seems kind of self-defeating "give up" if used too often. "Give-and-take" seems more appropriate.
Nearly every time someone claims they "compromised," I ask, "how." "We'll do it his way." That's not compromise. That's capitulation, which probably was right stance from the start. Compromise means each is "giving something up." It's not capitulation. Too many people think they can "mold" another to behave and act just like they do, and then put those two people together, and their "creative" remolding juices are like Shelly's Frankenstein, creating another monster. If you want a "Double," you're an unabashed narcissist. Admit it. We see them periodically. Physical and act look-a-like muscle-building, pec-flexing, Gym Queens who look like and act just like the other. X and His Shadow.
Let's clear some air about the newest New Age Metaphysical Ponzi Scheme de jour: "The Secret: The Law of Attraction." No such "law" exists. No one promoted this nonsense, except today's Ponzi artists. Sadly, people "believe" it. You should read the vitriol in response to exposing its incredulousness. "Quantum physics" my ass; it's Quantum Mechanics. Opposites electromagnetically attract, so then should "opposite" humans? Please. Next they'll tell us, like Pavlov and occult psychologists, they can "cure" homosexuality by "operant conditioning," just as Pavlov conditioned his dogs. Some humans are dogs, but none are canine. And let's put Pavlov's "operant conditioning" to the feline test (The inimitable Eddie Izzard raises the "feline defense" against Pavlovian conditioning, but I don't think even his urbane and sophisticated audiences always get his genius.)
When magnets and dogs are humans, when the Ponzi artists get their heads out of the clouds (or up someone's butt), then let's talk. As I mentioned earlier, we reason and emote "analogously," associating like-to-like, but let's not go off the deep metaphysical end with the nonsense de jour. And, NO, thinking it so won't make it so. Occult psychology already tried that nonsense. Nor is compromise a "plus" in a Bond. Compromise enters ONLY when flexibility fails. And, if you are "compromising" (not just capitulating), why?
Respect.
This is my last "skill." But it's not last in importance. If one cannot genuinely respect another person "as he is," one cannot love him either. Of course, there must be give-and-take in the bond, and sometimes one takes all, another time the other gives all, the next time the other takes all, and the first gives all. That's why "compromise" seems foreign to me, although clearly necessary in some cases. Respect regards each other as EQUALS worth our EQUALITY. So, let's start from this foundation. If one does not respect the other, as EQUALS WORTHY of each other, what the fuck are you doing together?
And this raises an even more important point: Those who expect EQUALITY of PERSONS to be equality of contributions has screwed language. Love does not keep a Ledger, a Scorecard, of, "okay 1 for me, now it's your turn to bat." Someone recently complain, "well I helped him," and I asked, "so?" "Well he owes me." "Says who? Obviously, he doesn't!" This immensely teenage "scoring" system works fine for athletics, and business needs to know assets and liability to insure equity, but EQUITY is not EQUALITY.
Let me concrete. Beloved and I both enjoy things the other HATES. Generally, we do these things separately, but occasionally we join in each other's interests, not because we HATE it any less, but because we enjoy seeing each other enjoy HIS interest. Now, I have not compromised in the sense of "giving up," I have "compromised" only in the sense of being flexible. And even when I share some of his interests that I really HATE, he knows I am doing it solely because I love him and "get off" watching him delight in his interests. He reciprocates. This EQUALITY, not EQUITY.Equality insists we respect each other as equally WORTH each other. Equity insists on the same number of inputs and outputs with a surplus for the winner. Equality is not Equity. Too many expect Equity, and sure don't regard the other as EQUAL. If they did, they would not be "tallying" a scorecard. If they did, they would not be in negotiations to "compromise." Compromise signals barter. Love never barters. Equity suggest same inputs and outputs, in equal measure, and equal outcome, and tallied to the score of Zero, Flat, when the Assets minus the Liabilities offset. Are we now accountants, too? With Balance Sheet, Profit-and-Loss, and, most importantly, Source and Use of Funds? All very evenly allocated. This is a "business," not a Human Bond.
If "metaphors" could kill, economic metaphors kill romantic love. "Investment." "Fair Share." "Assets and Liabilities." "Job One." "Working on our Relationship." "Resource Allocation." "Balance the Costs and Against the Benefits." "What's the Net Return on Equity?" "Who Benefits?" "What's My Profit?" "It's in the Contract." "You Promised." "You Defaulted on our Terms." "I've provided the Stimulus, Where's the Response?" "We're a Package Deal." "We Signed-Off on It" Etc. Etc.
Don't misunderstand me. I delight in metaphorical language. My most personal post uses several metaphors, and speaks to their cautionary use (see, Riding the Wave). But, everyone of the economic metaphors above is DEADLY MISTAKEN. The economics of markets should be wonderfully spontaneous for buying-and-selling, as Hayek wisely urges, but interpersonal spontaneity, much less homoerotic romantic love, keeps no ledgers, no scorecard, no cost-benefit analysis, no market analysis, no tallies.
Conclusion.
"But what 'skills?' You promised 'skills,' and you've offered none." Oh, yes I have, just not the "skills" a textbook, Cosmopolitan, PlanetOut, or occult psychologists offer. You see, "skills" are another economic metaphor, as something one puts on his resume. Love knows nothing of skills. Skills are rationally-used deployments of learned talents for the purpose of economic success. Your employer wants them. Your Beloved wants YOU. What I'm outlining is not that "skills" in the economic sense, but in the interpersonal sense.
"Skills" in the economic sense are inapplicable to homoerotic romantic love, because they use yet another economic metaphor. And, whatever else homoerotic romantic love is, it is not an economic exchange among equity partners. Homoerotic romantic love is all about EXCESS: EXCESS passion. EXCESS desire. EXCESS possession. EXCESS sensibilities. EXCESS sensitivity. And all those EXCESSES are prohibited in economics, unless it is an excess of profits at any cost. None of these economic metaphors has a place in our most intimate, loving, romantic bonds. In fact, I really doubt the value of the state's marriage contract, for precisely the same reason; it imposes more economic metaphors onto our most intimate yearnings according to a commodity the State can control, regulate, and legitimate.
Being attuned, in tune, and charged is usually all the "skill" one needs, because those "skills" are not "skills" at all. They are life.
Here's a map for your convenience:
- The Moral Invaders: Love Suppressors
- Loving vs. Love: The False Dilemma
- On Communication: An Elaboration
- Block That Metaphor: Barriers to Romantic Love
- References: Primary, Exegetical, Critical, Secondary
- Greek Love: Homoerotic Love for Gay Men (Matrix)
The Moral Invaders: Love Suppressors
One of the most serious disagreements I have with Harry Frankfurt's The Reasons of Love is his claim that love is "disinterested." This concept also arises in Walter Lippmann's A Preface of Morals. I think it trades on a philosophical ambiguity that arose within German Idealism, has a certain Eastern mystical element, and is clearly mistaken. Using Lippmann's sense of "disinterested,"
The only kind of love which is workable in the real world is the love of the disinterested individual who has transformed his passions by an understanding of necessity.Frankfurt's use is similar, if not identical. And, "love" can be replaced by any "value," such as liberty, truth, justice, etc., in this conceptional apparatus. What lies behind this "disinterested," "necessity," and "real world" motif is an effort to make clear that, "what we care about in a beloved is not merely him as a means, but him as an end." But let's tread carefully around this sentiment, because it has been a source of immense confusion.
Now, this latter sentiment is spot-on; we love our Beloveds as Ends-in-Themselves, not merely as Means-to-an-End. But never "disinterestedly." That is gravely mistaken. This notion of "disinterested" is trading on a confusion found in Kant's morality and aesthetics that suggests "detachment" and "remoteness" where humans perceive each other as "objects" to be appreciated and treated as a "Kingdom of Ends," not a "Kingdom of Means."
Let's be a little less metaphysically abstract. Where one human "uses" another human SOLELY as a "means" to his own objectives, without the other's voluntary consent, is morally and ethically reprehensible and objectionable. But Kant is not dividing the line here. According to this morality, humans must always be "Ends-in-Themselves," never "Means-to-an-End." And definitely, never as a "MEANS-ONLY." We can agree with the latter, but none of the other. (Some ambiguity surfaces in interpretations.)
Frankly, I have no appetite for a protracted eisegesis/exegesis of Kant's moral metaphysics, which, while utterly brilliant in the best intellectual sense, is also utterly convoluted, labyrinthine, and impractical, such that it is only of intellectual interest, and not of much practical use. But its language continues to surface, especially in this subject matter, and its needs to be addressed to avoid confusions.We "use" others precisely like they "use" us. In employment. In friendships. In love. In families. In networks. In trade. In all sorts of instrumental ways, PROVIDED we mean we "engage others instrumentally as means-to-ends that they and us have agreed to voluntarily and consensually." The italicized words are critically important. Without them, we are immersed in a moral nightmare.
Kant insists we regard and treats all humans as (i) ENDS-ONLY, never as (ii) MEANS-to-ENDS, and never as (iii) MEANS-ONLY. To do this, he introduces concepts like "disinterestedness," "reason alone," "necessity," and other language that confuses many people, and frankly, some of it is just plain hyper-rational in the extreme, and has largely been dismissed as too extreme. For my purposes, I fully accept what he does not (ii), but I also accept his (iii).
The "means-to-an-end" is absolutely necessary in a substantial percentage of our actions, provided it is mutual, consensual, non-abusive, and non-injurious. However, "using" humans SOLELY as "MEANS-ONLY," such as in slavery, rape, torture, is morally reprehensible, repugnant, and indefensible.
For example: If two guys want to "use" each other to "get off together," and it is voluntary, mutual, consensual, non-abusive, non-injurious, and both find this arrangement satisfactory, it is perfectly acceptable behavior. I am not recommending it, but rather I find nothing morally objectionable to it. But the precise reason this morally-acceptable behavior is NOT homoerotic romantic love is because it is "disinterested," "necessary," and "real world" behavior. It is an "exchange," an "implied or explicit" contract, voluntary, mutual, consensual, and non-injurious. That passes my "moral" threshold, even if it does not Kant's. It is not necessarily ethical, nor is it necessarily unethical, since the individuals themselves would have to determine the "excellence" of the actions. I'm not prepared to judge that situation for others. This perfectly illustrates what I mean by "judgmentalism" by "moral dogmatism" versus the judgment valuation of ethics.
Erotic sex acts WITHOUT emotional, personality, character, feeling, other-regard, passion, etc. are precisely what we mean when we identify them as "disinterested," acting out of "necessity," and the "real world." Beloveds are NEVER "disinterested," "necessitous," or necessarily engaged with the "real world." That is why homoerotic romantic love is passionate, spontaneous, extraordinary -- all the things "just sex" is not!
Some people, especially Kantians, find this "utilitarian" behavior "immoral," because it "uses" other people. Hell. What do you think "employment/employer" is? Is "employment/employer" immoral? "Buyer/seller" immoral? And all those other "uses" of each other immoral? These moralists trade on mistakes and fail to see their errors. Using others as MEANS-ONLY is indeed immoral and unethical. But love as "disinterestedness" to achieve this "moral consciousness" is dead wrong.
So, let's return to Frankfurt's basic point, and omit this Kantian "disinterestedness," "necessity," "real world," and "kingdoms-of-ends" nonsense before we become Platonic lovers and transcendental spiritualists -- neither who found ROMANTIC LOVE. We love our Beloveds as Ends-in-Themselves, AS WELL as Means-to-an-End, BOTH, and we love them PASSIONATELY, intensely, spontaneously, voluntarily .
Love vs Loving: A False Dilemma
Frankfurt also spins the "chicken-and-egg-first" question, and decides that the act of loving comes before the value of love. It's only in loving another that we find its value, he insists. Not that we value love, or value others in love, or value previous loves, and therefore seek love out, rather we only value love after we are loving another. Have we not seen this either/or nonsense before? Yet, another false dilemma? A sure sign of dogmatism. The thought that "loving" and "love" could be AND/BOTH dynamics never crosses Frankfurt's mind. It never appears on his radar.
But it is AND/BOTH, not either/or. Remember, values are incommensurate. "Love" and "Intimacy" and "Bonds" and "Erotica" and "Loving" etc., can all be valued together. Some conflicts may arise, because the values are incommensurate, and they can conflict. But, the either/or alpha/omega "LOVING" is a value, as well as "LOVE" is a value, disjunction, is a conjunction; we can value BOTH, ACT on both, at the same time.
Indeed, by loving we increase the value of love, and as the value of love increases we increase the our loving, reciprocally, dialectically, dynamically, and so on and so on, etc., etc.. It's called "reciprocity," "dynamic," "interaction," "build-up," "mutually-entailed," "mutually-reinforcing," "tension," "dialectic," and all those other AND/BOTH expressions that are NOT an either/or dichotomy. If one waits for either the chicken or the egg to come first you'll never cross the road!
I hasten to add, unfortunately, that if an individual has never witnessed, experienced, or imagined what a romantic love is, or could be, that individual is certainly at a disadvantage to this dialectic, and likely will have to depend on being loved first, before he can love, or even value it. Which only reinforces the need for exposure to these loves, through literature, through families and families that bear witness to it, through works of insight and wisdom, and frankly, by volunteering. Anyone who spends any time as a volunteer (unless it is an insane asylum) is likely to encounter examples of romantic love, or at least likenesses to it. But it won't come through a computer screen, music-videos, or hook-up sites. That I assure you. Much less toilet rooms. Public baths are pretty unlikely, too.On Communication: Elaborations
The ability to use language (semantics, especially) to convey information is immensely useful. It may not always be appropriate, that's where prudence comes in. It's vital to be honest and truthful, but not necessarily "fully." It helps to share verbally and in writing what sometimes can only be expressed by those avenues. It helps to have "no censored environment," standards, which not only permits, but encourages others to share "whatever" they want to share, but then, that requires some discipline on both sides of the transaction. Sometimes what we "feel" and how we "communicate" our feelings becomes oblivious to our other aspects, like reason, drives, emotions, imaginations, memories.
If therapy serves any purpose whatsoever, and I'm doubtful it does, if it gets one to "open up" to the freedom to express oneself, that's the best it can do. If it can do that. But because the dam within oneself is finally overcome is not a license to dam-age others. Discretion is the better part of valor; not only in what one says, but when. If flames are immolating each other, it's not time to add more logs to the fire. And, why is there flames at all? If one is honest, fully disclosing, respectfully, then heated flares ups should be rare. But, we often encourage communication, but then we don't like what we hear, and defeat it by our reactions.
One of the things Beloved and I did early-on was create a "hypothetical room." This mythical room is kind of like today's chat-room, except we do know who is on the other side of the chat, not an avatar, icon, or some silly gizmo. In our "hypothetical room" either one of us can "discuss anything and everything -- hypothetically." In other words, this is what some would call a "sounding-off" or "trial balloon" "pre-marketing test market" environment. One or the other has an idea, nothing less, nothing more, and we agree to "test" the idea. We reify the idea. It is our guest. It may be Beloved's guest or my guest, but it is neither one of us. And we discuss this "guest" as if it were an object, person, place, thought, etc. in a very limited "disinterested" sense. No one "owns" it. It's just "floated." To see what the other thinks, feels, responds, etc. as a "test."
This mechanism, or device, if you will, seems kind of corny at first, but it has been our lifeline. He and I can raise a "hypothetical" so we can discuss any hypothetical with some detachment, but clearly no "ownership." And like any "guest," it can come and go, or even stay for a while. We might even invite the "guest" to become our friend. We might decide the "guest" is not right for our type of household, and after it leaves, never see our "guest" again. Or we may happen on to our "guest" latter while out and about, and so we "bring ourselves up-to-date" with our "guest," to see if he, we, or neither have "changed" how we feel about this "guest." In all these metaphors of distance, detachment, yet acquaintance, we "ease" each other into new territory, and if one or the other does not like the venture, we can leave it for different ventures.
As Beloveds, everything we say, write, feel, think, etc., takes on larger importance, because our Beloved is important, and vice versa. So, this device, or mechanism, allows a "safe" hypothetical room to kick-around some ideas, to see how the other thinks, feels, etc., what objections surface, what aspects are desired, what obstacles might be encountered, the costs and benefits to be considered, etc. Safely. Without "ownership." As our "guest." Who we decide "stays" or "leaves," under what circumstances, and why we made the choice. This "hypothetical room" is always open to us, as it is "open." Any concept can be "proposed" in any subject. Any question asked. Any criticism discussed. Any advantages and disadvantages analyzed. Without "commitment." After all, it's "hypothetical." An "experiment" in our heads.
What this mechanism does is make the "idea" it's own entity. It is not yet part of either one of us. Just an "idea." Just like an "avocado." Something to examine between THE BOTH OF US. "What do you think?" "How about you?" "What if this happens?" "Did you think how great this would become?" Like lab partners in chemistry class. It's a "mental experiment" we share together. And the fact that WE SHARE the experiment, makes it both impersonal and personal, in just the right way. If the "lab" explodes, we know not to repeat that experiment. If the "lab" yields sweet nectar, we can choose to drink it. As I mentioned, it seemed corny at first. Too artificial. Yep. But in just the right way. It both brings US together, but keeps our "guests" distinct. Give it some thought. Try it out. It has been indispensable for us. And it succeeds far better, cheaper, and deeper than "paid therapy." In my book, this is communication.
The benefits of this device have been enormous. When Beloved was troubled about something we had been doing together, the "hypothetical room" allowed us both to examine the source and cause of his concern, not him. In this case, it had little to do with him personally. It involved him, and he and I decided that the involvement was no longer appropriate FOR US. I could have chosen to continue, he discontinue. He could have seen it from a different perspective, given it a little more tolerance, and continued his involvement. BUT WE DECIDED based on this "hypothetical room" idea what was desired (1) by each of us, (2) for both of us, (3) as both of us, that (4) ultimately involved both us as individuals and and as a bond. In the safety of this "hypothetical room" he floated a concern that was not my concern, until it became his concern, when seen through his eyes, became my concern, without either of US being the topic of concern. "It" was the concern. "It" was examined. "WE" decided.
Block That Metaphor: Barriers to Romantic Love!
What homoerotic romantic love is NOT (in a mock dialogue sketch between Beloveds) can often be found in "metaphors" we use, but if even metaphorically applied, are not truely love:
"Love is a Fair Exchange, a Tit-for-Tat, an I'll Scratch Your Back if You Scratch Mine"
Utter nonsense. Mistaking equality of persons for equality of contribution is one of the most common and disastrous mistakes. We've heard couples banter, "but I did this, you owe me that." No fuck'n way. We're not money. We're not barter. Much less Balance Sheets with "assets" and "liabilities" with "stockholders equity." We may be "negotiable," but let's not carry the economic metaphor to silliness. "Hey, I gave $.0.50, you owe $0.50, fair is fair." Maybe in a contract with a business partner, but not with Beloveds. If you expect fairness of outcomes or contributions, you'll never find romantic love."We Are Working At It: The Job One of Loving"
Again, utter nonsense. Rollo May baptizes this nonsense as the "Calvinist Proof of Emotional Salvation." (Raised as a Calvinist, I find this phrase quite appropriate.) We are not "projects" or "jobs" or "tasks." We aren't in the business of "proving" our love (as Calvinists are not not-proving their salvation with financial success through their work ethic). We don't have to "work at it" to show we are saved/care or "in love." In fact, "working at it" is frequently a sign of resuscitation, not love. The bond is on the skids, triage to salvage. If one is constantly "working at it," one is on the last legs of rescue, just as 911 emergency calls. (Negotiating together is a different matter.)"The Melodramatic (Soap-Opera) Love"
Love-as-Theater, or Theater-as-Love: the Stephen Sondheim "What I Did for Love" (or was it "Into the Woods?") or Julie Andrews Climbing Every Mountain, or Days of Our DREADED Lives, daytime serials of suds and foam. Great for Lonely Housewives. Good for Proctor & Gamble. Bad for romantic love."We're In a Relationship: Annie Hall Meets Zwilig"
This is one of Psyche's fav's (seriously!). The New Yorker cartoonists often lampoon this pathetic state of affairs. "I feel something, but it's just a 'thing' thing, pregnant with possibilities -- not yet his babies, but, if we can simply unload social oppression, and all those repressive superficial Woody Allen neuroses to find our Dianne Keaton looking-for-meaning soul-journers, I know I will find myself and him in the picture we can draw for each other. It's so existentially meaningful to connect to something bigger than ourselves (implants, maybe?)""We're Communicating: The AT&T Line Is Static"
"Hello? Are you there? Didn't you get my message? Are we not communicating?" Telepathically? Panpsychically? Interplanetary transcendentally? "I just can't get through to him. He's so incommunicable." Nothing broken a new line or exchange won't solve. "Earthlink, can you connect me to Denver, AT&T is not connecting? What? That's long-distance? Operator-Assisted costs us what? Can we make an appointment?" On the other end: "Sweetheart, he's right next to you." "Oh. We must have a bad connection." Dial tone. Dead phone, and dead "love.""You're-Better-Than-Nothing, No-Piece-of-Cake Love"
"Hey, you're no prize. I put up with you, so you had better put the fuck up with me, too, asshole. You do in a 'pinch." I'll let you fuck me when I don't have another engagement, but it's 'casual' dude, strictly casual, so don't get all wild-eye and romantic on me. We're just two Lonely guys using Love-as-a-Loneliness-Substitute. Worse-than-Teddy-Bear-Popcorn Abandonment Syndrome. Desperation. Worse: Mutual desperation. Usually mutual abandonment, too."We're Made for Each Other"
Just like Chinese imports! A little toxic, poorly crafted, cheap, and disposable. Besides, "Who Says You Are? Is someone talking on your 'inner' earphones I cannot hear?" Also known at the Electromagnetic and Chemical Theory of Love (a.k.a., Law of Attraction B/S"). "We're attracted like magnets; we chemically bond. We combust like fireflies to a fire." "We're simply made for each other." ""Heaven must have made you just for me." Perfect FIT, Right? Like honey-and-vinegar?" "No. The Elmer's Glue Factory Theory of Love. With Bush Administration Warranties.The "Medical" Love Motif
"Nothing a little love won't cure." "Nothing getting laid won't cure." Truth: "Love is a malady without a cure." (Memorize Dryden's wisdom and truth for your posterity.). "I'm addicted to him." "I need to detox after our relationship." "He's so toxic." (This is another Psyche's favs, that then they can profess to "cure.") "I feel your pain, can I soothe your ills?" "Therapy will do us a world of good." "You need to get help." "I think you're bipolar. You need intervention." (It's good for the Psyche business, but bad for romantic homophiles. "Love in therapy.")"Nothing God Cannot Solve"
The Queer Theology of Greek Love is a category mistake. Available at MCC for false indoctrination. "What? I can see you, dude. But who is this 'buddy' of yours riding bareback with us? Oh, if we just get down on our knees and pray, Jesus will cum with us?" "Who is bending-over for whom? No phantom is going put that dick where I can't find it, if I can't see it." "Sweetheart, if we just let Jesus into our hearts, if are reborn in the blood of Jesus that washes over all our sins, then we can fuck divinely, but only in the Lord." "Only God can pull us together; Great Three-Way!""Does that figment of your imagination always have to join us?" Can't we leave god out of our bedroom? He left us out of his salvation." "I thought Jesus was for the Haggard, Vitters, McGreevey, Toilet-Sex Crowd. Can't we flush that crap with them?""You Promised Me!"
"So, hey, I lied." This Deal was only good until "canceled. Now, you're "history." "But, you promised!" "So sue me." Breach-of-Warranty Love. "You said, 'forever.'" "Guys say a lot of things." "You signed on the dotted line." "So repossess me." "What god has joined together no MAN should tear asunder . . . unless something better comes along." "You promised, 'you'd always love me.'" "What did I know; I was three-sheets to wind with Haggard." "When did HE become part of the DEAL?" "This isn't what we agreed to. It's not in our contract. I have the paper. The tissue of lies." And you thought McGreevey was a real jerk?"Sea Gulls Mating Scheme (When Shit Loads Fall to Earth)"
(Freudian Fallacies) a.k.a. Pavlov's Dogs of Operant Conditioning of Human Love. "We have to obey the 'facts of life' and 'condition ourselves to accept' the facts of life. "Life is hard, but if the birds-and-bees can endure it, so can we." "I'm just your Oedipus, Messianic Complex, so you can fuck Jesus, while you really are dying to kill your father to fuck your mother through me!" "You little anal-retentive, potty-trained turd, can't get it up? It's just sex! Toilet sex, at that!" "Relationships suck." "Did the shit just hit the fan, or did we get busted?" "Can we play with each other's toys?" "I just luv your dildo. Will you do me, if I do you?" "How much? $20?" "Hey, pencil-dicks lurking in toilets after dark don't require a lot of work. Besides, that's what black men are for.""Saint Paul's Icky Substitutes"
"Don't you dare touch me; don't you know that's nasty! Flesh is hostile to god! It says so in the Bible. Man lying with a man is an abomination; stone the fudge-packers. Hang-up those queers to Die." "Those Greek civilizations don't have our tribal Yahweh, so only we get to obsess about contamination, while they spread their Greek love." "Let's love in the spirit, not in the flesh." "You look upon all those hot physical appearances, like the big hung uncut cock of Gilgamesh's in your phallus worship, but it will wither, fade, and die -- even if cut. While I look to the heart, which goes on ticking for ever." "We'll have to wait till the Rupture to Rapture, or else we'll go to hell for eternity." "For now, let's love chastely, as god loves us. You mean like bin Laden?" "Don't expose me to your filthy, corrupting, brutish, fleshy things. How icky, filthy, disgusting. You're not cut; you're not part of the Covenant. Nah, nah, nah-nah!" "Let our love be spiritual, incorporeal, and eternal, and real.""It's Just How I Feel"
"It's just how I feel. No reason to it. I'm the sensitive one; you're dead to life. You just have no clue as to how I and others feel, to who I am, to what I need. You're so self-absorbed you cannot notice how good I am to you. You're such a fuck'n loser for not even thinking about me. You're so insensitive. You're not in touch with your feelings, how can you be in touch with me? Get help! It's just how I feel, but I still love you." Wrong, wrong, wrong. How you feel has reasons. Maybe not good reasons, but reasons still."Love Hurts: S&M Meets B&D"
Love-As-Pain-As-Pleasure Psychosexual Displacement and Dysfunction. "That so hurts me. I don't know if I can take any more pain. I can take the physical abuse, but not the mental abuse. I can put up with it for the kids' sake, the black-and-blue damage, the S&M scenes, the bondage and discipline, since I know love is suppose to hurt. God, does it ever! But is it supposed to be this is fuck'n painful? "Shove it in hard. Real hard. Till it hurts." "Beat me. Beat me. I know you love me. You hurt to love me, and I love to hurt you. Ain't this love?" In a word: NO!You, Too, Can Be a FAG or an Androphile
It does not require rocket science, or divine intervention, occult psychologists, or more ink and media to demonstrate that you, too, can be a pathetic, homophobic, toilet-sex, hypocritical, cock-sucker and fudgepacker for Jesus. No serious observer of human behavior since humans could share their social contexts in antiquity ever thought sexual and erotic desire was something one chose like bananas and apples. Gilgamesh, the oldest epic ever written, has "loins" so gargantuan he is phallic-worshiped by males and females. The Homeric epic of the Iliad extols the love of Achilles and Patrocolus. Greek pottery shows, quite graphically, men's penises rising to their young men's occasions. Virgil writes of male love in the Ecologues and the Aeneid that brings lovers to tears. Plato's Symposium and Phadrus extol male love. Petronius' Satyricon gives a little space for orgies. Medieval religious extended their brotherhood with more self-flagellation whips and chains, they embraced in deep emotional commitment. Even Sappho writes of her women on Lesbos in ways that shows the beauty of human passion.
But, then, the currents changed. First, a tribal people thought their gods would dispossess them if they did not disposes others. While Alexander the Great is conquering the world, these bitter people were under Babylonian domination, and while Alexander made love to more me than the heavens stars, these tribal folk were yearning for former tribal kingdoms. When the Romans were having a great time ruling their vast empire, these tribal people became more and more unruly, subversive Barabbas and subversive Joshua (Jesus), and they were bent on overthrowing their tribal priests, until those priests put the subversive to the cross by Roman proxy. You know the rest of the story.
You can choose to be one of their FAGS, or you can choose to be openly, authentically, homoerotic lover of other homophiles. THEY claim they can cure you, while THEY hook you up their torture devices, and THEIR priests cut your penises, and THEY lurk in toilets for potty-sex, as THEY tie each other up in torture porn, as THEY conceal all women's flesh from others' views, THEY has sex with other men, but THEY are not "gay," because THEY cannot accept THEY are one of god's FAGS, who acts like a FAG or a QUEER, rather than a healthy homoerotic MAN. THEY do the "low-down," THEY to transgressive painful things to each other, THEY lie, cheat, spread contagion, THEY hide behind toilet stalls, THEY hide behind cassocks, THEY pretend they're god's chosen, THEY think something is wrong with them . . .
And SOMETHING is. They are LIVING LIES, as PEOPLE of the LIE. Jews. Christians. Muslims. All LIARS. That is YOUR choice. If you want to be THEM, THEY'LL WELCOME you. THEY need more FAGS for god. That way THEY don't have to face themselves. THEY don't have to be responsible to THEM or OTHERS. THEY can do toilets, because THEY are shit. THEY'LL piss on each other. Do YOU want to be just like THEM? The choice is always YOURS. You can be a FAG for god. One of GOD'S WARRIORS.
OR -- just OR, you can be you. The beautiful, loving, caring, joyful, human nature created to be just, and only, you. Unlike anyone else on planet earth. UNIQUE. BEAUTIFUL. LOVING. Where YOU you can love and be loved. Or you can HATE. God's FAGS hate. THEY hate themselves. THEY hate others. THEY lie, cheat, and steal. And they think THEY are gods doing the FAG god's will. It's just a difference of FAG/QUEER or being honestly gay. You don't even have to call it "gay." You can call it FAG/QUEER/LO-DOWN/MSM. Only YOU would know. But, I agree. THEY ARE FAG/QUEER/LO-DOWN/MSM, but they sure as hell ain't GAY. Gays LOVE other gays. GOD'S FAGS HATE. That's why they're FAGS. THEY burn. Just not very hot or brightly. THEY immolate.
The Summation
Androphiles with a commitment to personal excellence have a remarkable ability to flourish. And that flourishing includes a very constructive, healthy, evolving Bond between Beloveds, both of whom have grown to live and view the world through each other's eyes and navigate the stages of life in a dialectic of two-gather-nest.
You will grow in all sorts of different ways. You'll journey together; you'll fight together; you'll make love two-gather each other in each other's arms and other body parts that makes you smile, broadly, and glow.
References:
Primary
- Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics. Revised Oxford Translation.
- Roger Crisp (ed.), How Should One Live: Essays on the Virtues. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996.
- Phillipa Foot, Natural Goodness. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.
- Harry G. Frankfurt, The Reasons of Love. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004.
- A. L. Hilliard, The Forms of Value: The Extension of a Hedonistic Axiology. New York: Columbia University Press, 1950.
- Immanuel Kant, Groundwork to the Preface of a Metaphysics to Morals, 1785.
- Walter Lippmann, A Preface to Morals. New York: Time-Life Books, 1928.
- J. S. Mill, Utilitarianism. 1861.
- Robert C. Solomon, Love: Emotion, Myth, & Metaphor. New York: Doubleday, 1981.
- David Wiggins, Needs, Values, Truth: Essays in the Philosophy of Value. Third Edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998.
- William of Ockham, Summa Logicae, c. 1349.
Exegetical Texts (Aristotle)
- W. F. R. Hardie. Aristotle's Ethical Theory. Second Edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968 (1980).
- T. H. Irwin. Aristotle's First Principles. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989.
- Richard Kraut, Aristotle on the Human Good. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989.
- Nancy Sherman, The Fabric of Character: Aristotle's Theory of Virtue. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.
Criticism of Consequentialist Morality
The critics of utilitarianism and Kantianism, not to mention "divine and religious," morality are legion. It is virtually impossible to list them all. So, I offer some of the more "luminary" critics for sampling. Individuals who wish to pursue utilitarianism (I daresay Kantianism is entirely moribund after Rawl's abject failure in Theory of Justice) may consult Peter Singer, who seems to be the New Left's Loon Icon de Rigor Mortis.
I point to Appiah, in particular, and Raz, who is more political and legal in orientation. For an entirely "political" critique on consequentialism see Macedo and Lomasky, who, notwithstanding their "libertarian" credo, still speak to a virtuous liberal community rather than a Top-Down Imposed one.
- Kwame Anthony Appiah, Cosmopolitanism. New York: W. W. Norton, 2007.
- Loren Lomasky, Person, Rights, and Moral Community. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.
- Samuel Scheffler, Rejection of Consequentialism. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.
- Stephen Macedo, Liberal Values: Citizenship, Virtue, and Community in Liberal Constitutionalism.Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990.
- Joseph Raz, Reason and Value: Themes from the Moral Philosophy of Joseph Raz. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.
- Bernard Williams, Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004.
Secondary
- J. L. Austin, Philosophical Papers. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961.
- Donald Davidson, Subjective, Intersubjective, Objective. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.
- Gareth Evans, The Varieties of Reference. John McDowell, ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1982.
- Peter Geach, The Virtues. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press, 1963.
- Paul Grice, Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989.
- Paul Grice, The Conception of Value. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989.
- Eva Feder Kittay, Metaphor: Its Cognitive Force and Linguistic Structure. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987.
- Saul Kripke, Naming & Necessity. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1980.
- George Lakoff & Mark Johnson, Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980.
- Immanuel Kant, Critique of Judgment, 1790.
- Alfred R. Mele, Springs of Action: Understanding Intentional Behavior. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.
- David Miller (ed.), Popper Selections: Essays by Karl Popper. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985.
- Robert Nozick, The Nature of Rationality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1993.
- Robert Nozick, The Examined Life: Philosophical Meditations. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1989.
- Karl Popper, Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Revised Edition. New York: Oxford University, Press, 1979.
- Nicholas Rescher, The Validity of Values: A Normative Theory of Evaluative Rationality. In, A System of Pragmatic Idealism, Volume II of III. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993.
- Gilbert Ryle, Dilemmas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1954.
- Bertrand Russell, The Problems of Philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press, 1959 (1912).
- Bertrand Russell, The Conquest of Happiness. London: W. W. Norton, 1930.
- John Searle, Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969.
- John Searle, Intentionality: An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
- John Searle, The Construction of Social Reality. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1998.
- John Searle, Mind, Language, and Society: Philosophy in the Real World. New York: Basic Books, 1998.
- John Searle, Rationality in Action. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2001.
Email: D. Stephen Heersink, a.k.a., The Gay Species & Androphilia
0 comments:
Post a Comment
Please be civil and responsible, creative and provocative and logical, but no "ad hominems" or "spam."