tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38413397.post2773332757207624246..comments2023-12-19T15:10:02.866-08:00Comments on ex cathedra: A firstUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38413397.post-65777619361992931412011-12-12T17:32:45.527-08:002011-12-12T17:32:45.527-08:00@Leah. Maybe, but I'm not sure. ... Your expla...@Leah. Maybe, but I'm not sure. ... Your explanation is possible only if they would feel threaten'd by e.g. C.S. Lewis's discussion of strong relationships of friendship in "The Four Loves."<br /><br />I think ex cathedra would definitely oppose any thesis that all friendships between men are crypto-homosexuality, homosexuality in denial etc. (Lewis leaves open such theses by treating Eros only as between man and woman in his treatment of erotic love in that book!)<br /><br />I feel a sort of considerateness or pity -- I hope not a condescending pity -- for the need of nonhetero men in 'internalized homophobia' etc to pass off a not "consummated" erotic attachment as friendship, especially when friendship is a strong element of the attachment. And I suppose a lot of friendships have a strong homoerotic component that isn't recognized by the friends.<br /><br />Touchstone editors might have been aware that religious fraternalness (brothers in Christ etc) can carry and only sort-of conceal a strong homoerotic component -- one rationale for the rules against "particular friendships" within monasteries and convents. A warrior brothers-in-Christ fraternity might seem rather more exciting to nonhetero youngsters than the moralistic brothers-in-Christ that Christianity is heir to.<br /><br />In my experience, the difficulty in friendship between a gay guy and a straight guy is that the gay friend wants something -- something major -- with the straight friend that the straight guy doesn't want. This easily somehow insinuates into the friendship that the straight guy is better or on a higher level etc than the gay guy. Any sort of betterness conflicts with the spirit of friendship, as C.S. Lewis's account of friendship makes clear. ne doesn't want, for instance, the intrusion of social rankings and hierarchies and so on into friendship. Friendship like eros dissolves those rankings. (Kierkegaard: the king in love with the peasant girl doesn't want her to feel that she is on a lower level of psyche or spirit than he is, even if he might be quite pleased if she is impress'd with his royal status -- a womangirl wants a man she can 'look up to' but that is as much within classes as outside them. Her proper sense would be that she can feel rather ego-gratify'd for having marry'd up -- not by his condescending pity but by his love for her. And if this means he supposes that a peasant girl is more wonderful and loveable than all the girls of the aristocratic class that he properly should marry from, well, who is she to find fault with a king's preference? If this impresses her family with how well she can do in marriage, so much the better. etc.<br /><br />She wants a man she can look up to but this doesn't mean that a man wants a womangirl he looks down on. There isn't a set phrase that precisely encapsulates the guy's longings, but he wishes to feel lucky and grateful in love. Besides Darcy, Darcy brings to the marriage his estate. Elizabeth brings only Elizabeth -- and even brings a negative dowry (her family's financial position and her sister's scandal -- that he must rectify). But he still feels lucky and grateful, and wants to feel this way.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38413397.post-81563653069702546572011-12-12T09:02:30.146-08:002011-12-12T09:02:30.146-08:00This is why you have your own blog. btw, my guess ...This is why you have your own blog. btw, my guess is they got too uncomfortable with your stating that men can have very deep ties that have nothing to do with the Male/female relationship.<br />Everyone creates a box called 'gay' and yours is nothing like what they imagine and although there was nothing sexual about it - it simply made them very very uncomfortable.<br />The left may be vocally nasty - the right simply shuts you out.Leahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16259612193829433575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38413397.post-73148757287815221372011-12-12T09:02:24.273-08:002011-12-12T09:02:24.273-08:00This is why you have your own blog. btw, my guess ...This is why you have your own blog. btw, my guess is they got too uncomfortable with your stating that men can have very deep ties that have nothing to do with the Male/female relationship.<br />Everyone creates a box called 'gay' and yours is nothing like what they imagine and although there was nothing sexual about it - it simply made them very very uncomfortable.<br />The left may be vocally nasty - the right simply shuts you out.Leahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16259612193829433575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38413397.post-85012202241913397032011-12-10T22:13:23.510-08:002011-12-10T22:13:23.510-08:00(d)evolution:
Sacrament of Blood
Sacrament of Wi...(d)evolution:<br /><br />Sacrament of Blood<br /><br />Sacrament of Wine<br /><br />Sacrament of Grape Juice<br /><br />Drinking the Grape Kool-Aid<br /><br />--NathanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38413397.post-43388445662623308552011-12-10T17:24:08.657-08:002011-12-10T17:24:08.657-08:00I can't really apologize in any way for the co...I can't really apologize in any way for the contempt imply'd in my reference to eye-rolling vs "blood brotherhood" rites. Seems to be simply intrinsic to "orientation." To an androphile such as Allan Bloom, marry'd guys no doubt seem'd absurdly "whip'd" -- although he would never have used such a vulgar term. Lesbians rather roll their eyes at their hetero sisters' absurd girlish ways (eyeliner especially, I think), as well as at their willingness or even preference to have a guy in their life (since after all hetero feminists' and lesbian feminists' complaint list against men is almost identical, but hetero feminists don't draw the obvious conclusion "Why bother?!") ... Maybe no gender orientational essence rolls their eyes at lesbians, and this because they do seem simply to "not bother about" a lot of stuff (daydreaming about future houses one might live in, femininity, vampire romance movies), which leaves the rest of us with the impression that they don't have anything going on -- no androphile stuff or gay stuff; no femininity or relationship reharsh mania and wedding planning mania; no guy stuff [both straight and apparently straight]. This is presumably a mistaken conclusion by the rest of us -- but they don't seem eager to fill us in on what they're really about ... unless maybe some lesbians do go in for a certain sort of ideological "politics," which does seem crazy to the rest of us.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38413397.post-70251813052231917432011-12-10T17:09:52.568-08:002011-12-10T17:09:52.568-08:00My gues is an editor found too much the reference ...My gues is an editor found too much the reference to the outside (or inside?) extremo sacramental bond of blood brotherhood.<br /><br />A grape juice Lord's Supper "memorial meal" isn't that electrifying, but "blood brotherhood" could feel to an editor too likely to replace institutional Christianity altogether, especially for any readers who have strong latent homoerotic potential. I think hetero or mostly hetero guys would roll their eyes at the blood brother mysticism, but might join in with the androphiles in a religion involving paintball warfare, which most all young guys are likely to find a lot more "meaningful" than Christianity, which late Roman Mithraists try'd to bury as "things for women," I recall.<br /><br />If man and woman are to be separated for the sake of avoiding the nightmare of "gender essentialism," then separate religions will become necessary. ... Maybe removing your comment was merely a futile rearguard action in a culture "war" that Christianity has alreaduy agreed to lose?<br /><br />How would Clausewitz define "culture war," I wonder. Apoliticalness carry'd on by other means?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com