California Newt
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2024
I don't recommend this. Not even I really post in that thread anymore because it's just a constant loop of the same poopsex arguments and low IQ interventions that never go anywhere. I refuse to either discuss or argue about buttholes ever, and as someone who is not a part of butthole discourse (or practice) I also have nothing to say about AIDS. People either get per capita or they don't; there's no point in a big argument about it.
What I wanted to talk about was what level of connection or depth gay relationships supposedly have over normal friendships (and how the latter might've been stronger historically), but it's clear everyone in there would rather argue about totally base disgusting things that nobody really needs to bother wasting breath on. If you need to seriously argue againtst buttsex, it's over. You already lost.
We put satellites into space. We're beyond these kinds of arguments as a species. Gotta have some dignity.
Pictured above: me trying to talk about Fr. Florensky and Rapp's books about homosociality in the dedicated fecal particle discussion threads.
I mention a book by "Allison Rapp" a few times. I mean to say Claudia Rapp. Allison Rapp was some kinda gamergate name that was bouncing around in my head and I got confused. Caudia Rapp is the Byzantinist.
If we're all just a bunch of ambiguously fruity (or formerly fruity, like @BIG SHOT Autos) men and women talking about how awful homosexuality is and the consequences of all those gross disgusting acts, it does get kinda goofy—which is why when I wander back in here these days I just point back to pre-modern (read: pre-19th-century-invention-of-the-category-of-the-homosexual) relationships among and between the sexes.
[]I'm beating a dead horse and need to find more examples, but I'm gonna once again post from St. Gregory the Theologian's Oration 43 (for the funeral of St, Basil the Great)—at least it's one I don't think I've posted in here before:
Bro, what? Imagine someone saying this to you, man.
A bit more context (plus analysis from Allison Rapp's "Brother-Making in Late Antiquity and Byzantium", which is a direct secular academic refutation of John Boswell's "Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe"):
—Two of the three "Cappadocians" (the third being St. Basil's brother, also named Gregory) famous for expressing the Trinitarian theology used for the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (better known as just "the creed"), by the way.[/]
Everyone here is probably familiar with C.S. Lewis' famous statement in "The Four Loves":
What you might not know is that there's a better author on this subject than C.S. Lewis: that author is Fr. Pavel Florensky, and the book is "The Pillar and Ground of Truth". This was a Russian priest and polymath martyred in the gulags.
If you look into it, it's probably best to skip the "Sophia" chapter. From what I understand he's not necessarily saying anything technically wrong there, but it borrows terminology used by the Russian philosophers of his time—who themselves did take it in a bad direction. That said, that's irrelevant to the "Friendship" chapter: like C.S, Lewis in "The Four Loves", Florensky goes into the distinctions between the four Greek words for love (philia, eros, storge, and agape); unlike Lewis, on the other hand, Florensky doesn't draw as rigid of a distinction between philia (friendship in the highest and most personal sense) and eros (yearning—not necessarily sexual, which is a distinction that Lewis notably also makes).
Here are a few notable excerpts:
The latter two above notably (again) mirror C.S. Lewis' "pilia/clubbableness" distinction through an equivalent "philos/hetarios" distinction. Here's something a little more surprising:
It's important to mention that he's probably referring to the "kiss of peace" as seen in early liturgies (and extant in some even today; these were "with a closed mouth" rather than an open mouth-on-mouth thing, and sometimes people had to be reminded of that):
I'm not about to try it, but it is interesting.
He also extensively references the brother-making ritual that Claudia Rapp writes about in her refutation (entitled "Brother-Making in Late Antiquity and Byzantium") of Boswell's "Same-sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe" (the latter of which tries to cast it as a gay marriage rite). I should also say this: while Florensky might make some theological statements that seem a little weird, the point is the underlying ethos.
But the bigger picture is that in the most charitable case, the whole gay thing really seems to be an incest-like degeneration of philophrosune.
Imagine if you told your mom that you had a maternal incest fetish. That would make the dynamic a bit weird, wouldn't it? Recontextualize some things? Why would you do that (if you had that fetish)?
Except instead of one person (your mom), it's all of your potential friends. That's the reason.
Last edited:
