Post a response:
|
Then let's see the evidence that it (dominance of the younger partner) was not. Edmund admonished me for speculating that it was such but never said anything, subsequently, to disabuse me of my impressions. So, let's see it. Let's see how that classical model of pederasty can exist within a liberal, humanistic framework. If your response is "We don't need liberal humanism," then that's where I'll find remote antiquity to be, not only unrecognizable but undesirable. I will still find it instructive as to how man/boy love has historical roots and can, to some extent, serve as a model for the future, but it's structure and context will rightly be seen as incompatible with liberalism and modernity. As for my insistence that we can be gay if we want to, regardless of what the dominant culture has declared, is as much strategic as anything else. The only difference is that you think the last word on the subject has been written; I do not. There will come a time when that frail link back to us will serve to our advantage even if we don't see evidence for it yet. That's what I meant by "nihilism." That self-satisfied certainty is not a quality that will serve us well. Time is deep and we are shallow. |