Obviously a great many acts have been outlawed for various and sundry reasons not analagous.

Report comment

Report comment

Report comment

Report comment

It’s statistically likely that 5 minutes of watching television will do the same.

Is this supposed to be an argument for television watching families to let their children attend public school? Because it seems to me more like an excellent reason for homeschoolers to dispose of their sets.

Report comment

Report comment

In my experience it is clear that many homosexuals and allies want to believe our attitudes are abnormal essentially because they want to believe that hostility to homosexuality is at least somewhat evitable long-term, at least against some homosexuals — compare the constant quest by certain feminist groups for a large historical matriarchal or egalitarian society, which always seems to exist in the time just before any definite evidence. These are basically God-of-the-gaps theories, and although they don’t necessarily bear any direct causal relation to someone’s concrete political ambitions, the association between believing in them and having certain ideological drives seems apparent to me.

(Another but less apt comparison which occurs to me is the belief that standards of beauty are largely culturally constructed and could really be pretty much anything, despite all rational reason and all available proof being to the contrary; to be a bit on the nose about it, I have never known a single hourglass-shaped woman who believed this.)

For my own part I would classify myself as being broadly in favor of feminism and LGBT equality, but I’m pretty much resigned to all of it being a reform in and for our own lifetimes — I have a very pessimistic view of the long-term prospects of these social changes. In the terms used by “severnayazemlya” quoted in Scott’s original post, I think they’re very far from being human-shaped, and I think we’ll spontaneously revert to a more human-shaped society at the first significant strain on the present societal order. We are, so to speak, in a metastable state.

Report comment

Report comment

Homosexuality is a modern construct. In Ancient Greece and Rome it was simply cut differently: it was OK for an adult male to do the dominant, penetrating role

I am merely pointing out that this “and Rome” is demonstrably incorrect, and that the Romans had a view of this matter far more similar to the, let’s say almost-contemporary, view that homosexuality is simply disgusting and unacceptable period — albeit being the passive party is worse. If I read you correctly your objection here is that “northern European culture” makes no distinction at all, but this is patently false since “flamboyant” or “queenish” homosexuality, clearly associated with being the “passive” partner whether that’s factually the case or not, is and was particularly reviled by those who do such reviling.

More importantly however, I firstly don’t see how

I don’t know if you are correct about the details of Rome, but even if so, you are missing Shenpen’s point.

is actually relevant since I only wrote my comment to correct the details on Rome, and secondly, how correction could be missing the point of the claim that (almost-)modern Europe is a special exception when I just pointed out that his example of the norm is actually an example of a society largely identical in its attitudes on the point to that of (almost-)modern Europe.

As far as I know, although I did not originally intend to comment on it (I choose to do so now), the claim that (almost-)modern Europe is an exception and that, e.g.,

THIS is actually what seems biologically normal: the “top” the dominant one being a normal masculine man and “not gay” and only the “bottom” i.e. man in a womans role (submissive) being strange

is incorrect. It appears that the so-called “European view” IS the biologically normal one and that the structure Shenpen described is the exception, occurring only in a few cultures at large (e.g. parts of Greece in antiquity — it’s worth note that the practices of Athens can NOT be generalized as those of Hellas), and in particular, extreme exigencies (e.g. sex-segregated prisons). Many of the examples frequently employed to “prove” otherwise are, like the Roman one, merely exaggerated, cherry-picked, or more or less deliberately misread. Thus in this context it would not be irrelevant to point out the falsity of the Roman example if I wished to argue the point, although in fact I only did so originally intending to increase accuracy for its own sake.

Report comment

I don’t know if you are correct about the details of Rome, but even if so, you are missing Shenpen’s point. He didn’t say that Rome was special. On the contrary, he said modern Europe is special and just gave Rome as one example of typical views. He was addressing people who belong to northern European culture and explaining that they are the exception.

Report comment