Wait for miracles, that is. Thanks for your long and thoughtful response. I don't believe, however, that institutionalized pederasty resulted from a victory at some point in the past by pederasts/ BLs over more straight-inclined warriors. Even the distinction would not have made sense to most traditional cultures. The most common understanding that seems to have prevailed is that most men, most of the time were attracted to beautiful women and would have sex with them if they could. That many men much of the time were attracted to handsome boys and would have sex with them if they could. That the categories were not mutually exclusive, although there were clearly some men who were manifestly not interested in boys and a somewhat smaller number who were not interested in women, but that it really wasn't an issue. What was an issue was how desire translated into socially acceptable behavior. Most societies recognized that a man couldn't just have any woman he wanted at any time; ditto boys. There had to be some kind of code. I concede that for most traditional societies, the desires of women and boys were less important (although not, in all cases, ignored). So in that sense these were societies in which being an adult male resulted, other things being equal, in far greater "privilege" than being a female or a boy. The instinctive reaction today is that that's oppressive. It's surely is, but that doesn't necessarily establish that it was socially destructive. Australian aborigines existed for 40,000 years in harmony with nature, practiced institutionalized pederasty and "oppressed women." As best I can tell, the liberal capitalism that emerged out of the Scottish Enlightenment has only a few decades left to run -- if that -- for a grand total of three centuries. 40,000 vs. 300? Who wins that contest? SR |