Post a response:
|
Thank you for such a detailed response. A few thoughts. I suppose that is a valid way to put it, re: me being a "boy-lover" in some sense of the word. Though, from what I have seen, it is much more about the "love" (Eros/Philia) dimension to boys, which I have no special claim to. Re: who is speaking of the boys, Allen Ginsberg's so-called poem "Sweet Boy, Gimme Yr Ass" comes to mind, as does "The Asbestos Diary", "The Panthology Reader", etc. I had tried to find art post mid 1900s, and came up only with tasteless erotica. All that I see seems to be of a very basal nature, it's quite jarring to go from the "lofty peak(s)" described by John Gambril Nicholson, to the "cocklet" (and I could not have imagined a more repulsive word) of one Casimir Dukahz. I think I am being frank in the sense of being open and direct, though not quite as frank as such authors, because I believe there to be some level of restraint in how I speak. I should say, as you rightly point out, that "aristocratic" in my sense isn't strictly about class, it's more about refinement, which has been historically tied to the upper class. It is this sense of refinement that I believe is dying out, both within pederastic/boy-love circles, and beyond. Obviously older civilisations recognised the Eros, but the desire was not reduced to being solely "fulfillment" of some kind of appetite, beauty itself was an ideal appeased. As to what led me here, it's been a long path. As you note, much of the modern gay community is rather tasteless and political, men reduced to holes or poles, quibbles around "gay marriage" when, in my view, gays only want marriage to assimilate into a heterosexual worldview pushed on them. It all feels very dull to me, and I have little desire to be scrolling Grindr as I pop a PrEP for guy #342, as many gays seem content to do. I was initially trying to find something more refined, so I looked historically, and found many supposedly "gay" authors, from Ibycus to Wilde. Though, the more I actually looked at these writings, the more it became very clear that the historical mode of homoeroticism was pederasty, not modern homosexuality. This is when I tried reversing that approach, trying to see if pederasty produced anything in the modern day, and found nothing of worth. Hence, somewhat, my confusion, why this mode seems to be perfectly capable of producing fine art, yet produces none currently. I do wonder if it might be the overshadowing of politics, where pederasts are more concerned with some kind of "sexual liberation" and do not accept potential self-destruction or isolation as the consequence of living according to higher ideals, as some of the Uranians seemed to: "L FORBIDDEN GROUND. It is my glory, dearest, and my pride To honour you in thought and deed and word, To sing your praises ever, as a bird Pours forth one gladsome song and naught beside, But of the hours Love has sanctified. No joys must e’er be told or memories stirred, – Too deep the things that I have seen and heard Through portals of my Paradise flung wide. Hid in my secret soul’s securest cell They lie, and if through bars that intervene I dare to break, to think of what has been, And to my own heart all its raptures tell, – Then I, of these sweet things unspeakable, Say only, I have heard and I have seen!" I certainly have appeared, hence Phaino, though I suspect you might've already known that etymology. |