Sunday, December 29, 2013

Sic Aut Non

Should I read this book?

The author is a follower of Ken Wilber's Integral Model, which is A Grand Theory of Everything. Lover of systems though I be, Wilber has always put me off. Even more of a Five than I am.

Gilles Herrada's major point, that (male) homosexuality lacks a mythic meaning --to say nothing of an evolutionary reason-- is pretty true. And reviews indicate that he was wise enough to describe the problem without offering a quicky myth of his own.

Well, we'll see. Clever book cover, though.

PS Update. After reading through the Kindle sample, I may buy the 400+ page book. The writer asks very good questions indeed and shares some of my very dim views on gay culture and identity. Although clearly extremely intelligent and educated, --a biological researcher by trade--his English style should have been edited to remove the annoying European smell in his prose. As well, having seen a few minutes of him on YouTube, I have to say that I have a distinct dislike for him. His accent --a combo of French and Spanish?-- and way of speaking, especially the EuroIntellectual habit of combining faux-humility with absolutist pretensions, brings back unpleasant memories of graduate school. And he occasionally indulges in the stupidest mental rituals of current PCism, apologizing for being a man and therefore unable to fully include lesbianism in his book. God, I hate that shit.

(Reminds me of a prof I had in grad school. I had found one of his books extremely helpful and enlightening. Took a course from him and came to loathe him as a man, a petty, controlling and narcissistic tyrant. As I later came to see, he was a classical Leftist, shouting the narrative of liberation and equality while his misanthropic shadow dominated his personal life. Sometimes it's wise to keep ideas and character quite separate. Never could read that book again.)

Herrada's thoughts on the Pope and gay marriage are quite unusual for their intelligence and non-hysteria. He even comes close (by a different route) to Jack Donovan's reasons for rejecting it: it is a false archetypal fit. Or as ExC terms it, 'straight drag'. A good sign.

Pluses and minuses considered, since Kindle books are so cheap, I will look through it.



Anonymous said...

This seems to coincide with my own theological thoughts on the subject of male homosexuality, and whether anal sex can be committed while preserving the honor and dignity of the submissive. My analysis is not too encouragingl: in the animal kingdom, male animals penetrate each other to exert dominance. Among human cultures, homosexual acts have typically been acts like frottage; anal sex was degrading to the submissive, and it was usually only anal penetration that was punished.

I think the union of two men is better achieved through frottage, which has a unique sexual energy: both members being active. A man and a woman are active/passive. I have no problem with oral sex: the imagery of kneeling before a lover is too obvious and powerful to ignore. I have tried to understand the symbolism of anal sex, and failed. The more I speak with straight conservatives who otherwise don't have a problem with gay people, the more I get the impression that anal sex is a sticking point for them. Besides which, from what I've been discovering, anal sex only became popular in the late 70s. And we all know what started happening in the late 70s.

If you've been able to theologically validate anal sex for yourself, I won't try to persuade you otherwise. I can't seem to do it.


Anonymous said...

Justification: Guys want to screw something.


Anonymous said...

Nathan, call me vanilla, but I just don't find the thought of taking another man's penis up my garbage chute, or putting my penis up his garbage chute, to be very romantic or arousing. And apparently, I'm not alone among gay men in that sentiment.


OreamnosAmericanus said...

Some thoughts of mine on this issue, from a few years ago.

Anonymous said...

I don't disagree about submission and its power/necessity in gay sex, Ex. Leading and following are fundamental male roles. Oral sex is pretty obvious: one man standing, one man kneeling. The imagery is so powerful to me, it's mind boggling. Even frottage, while not being as obvious as anal sex, can obtain a dom/sub dynamic if one man elevates himself over his partner ala the missionary position.

I just don't find anal sex arousing. A matter of taste, I guess. I don't fancy being on the receiving end due to some recurring GI problems and I don't think I have the equipment to top, so…


OreamnosAmericanus said...

There's no requirement,of course! But it is indeed a hot-button issue --and aside from overt effeminacy of character, THE issue-- and therefore deserves some serious consideration, regardless of how one wishes to participate or not.

Anonymous said...

Hello ex-cathedra (sorry I couldn't find your real name anywhere on the page). I'm Gilles, the author. I just found your blog after a random search. Some of your comments made me laugh by the way :) I just wanted to say hi and don't hesitate to email me at if you wanted to discuss. Gilles

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...