|
I would love to do full justice to this long post of yours and it's just possible I'll squeeze the time to do so tomorrow, but for fear this is unfortunately going to be impossible, I will briefly now address just two serious flaws I see in it. First, you claim that "half or more of gay men desire to fuck boys", but otherwise write as though all gays would wish to. I think this is utterly false. I admit the reality of the phenomenon of natural pederasts posing as gays: the Stephen Frys of the world who can somehow find it easier to muster lust for young men rather than women. But I would say they are a smallish minority of apparent gays and fairly easily identified from the rest by their fixation on the youngest legal. Most gays represent a cultural adaptation to sick WEIRD society of an old but always-minority phenomenon, the berdache or mahu who were once functional under their own peculiar circumstances. The historical record shows unambiguously that most men who showed themselves sexually drawn to boys were also drawn to women and sexually repelled by other men. Trumbach never claims, as you try to imply, that pederasts metamorphosed into gays due to the social change he dates to 1700. Androphilia has always been around. Its emergence (as "mollies") into public view in intensely homophobic northern European society was due to the emergence for the first time of cities big enough for mollies to be able to meet and club together rather than remain isolated. The decline of pederasty was not because mollies represented an alternative way forward, but because the molly brand put most men off pursuing any form of sodomitical inclination. Secondly, you are wrong to attribute to me any willingness to brand anyone with the trite woke accusation of "misogyny". For lack of time this is going to be a gross simplification devoid of the nuance one should bring into any argument, but basically the human instinct is to mesh together serious liking of other people (ie, the opposite of the mis- prefix) with erotic attraction. Pederasts tend to like most of the characteristic traits of boys and mulierasts tend to love female traits. The real non-misogynists or philogynists (and I believe to the depths of my soul this to be as true as it is politically incorrect) are the Casanovas or Matzneffs or Mark Antonies (Shakespearian interpretation in this instance, rather than historical reality) of the world. No one should get on a high horse about this: men of integrity should simply say plainly what they are. But denunciation of others as "misogynist" by those incapable of attraction to women is usually hypocritical and pretentious and an utterly dishonest and cowardly hiding behind politically correct slogans. Generally, you like women (really) or you don't; it has nothing to do with social policy. ![]() www.amazon.com/dp/1481222112 |