Wednesday, January 16, 2013

Opening Ceremony

(Catullus and Ali arrive at the Kirkman house. Germanicus and Sheila are already there, filling an effigy of Saturn with olive oil. Juvenal has just arrived. Catullus leaves a small gift at the feet of the household gods and joins his siblings.)

Juvenal: Catullus, Ali. Glad you guys could come out.
Catullus: Hello Juvenal.
Juvenal: Hey little brother, I've been hearing some scandalous rumours about you.
Catullus: Oh?
Juvenal: I was talking to Lydia – You sure you want me to bring this up in public? I could take you aside later.
Catullus: I've nothing to hide.
Juvenal: Brave man. Okay. According to her, not only did you, in clear violation of Kirkman family policy, attend Perpetua's baptism, but you were also observed eating Jesus.

Catullus: When in Rome...
Juvenal: No no no. You're not getting off the hook that easily. No way would Lydia have let you profane her holy crackers with your unworthy tongue – unless she had some reason to think that you were a “Catholic in good standing.”
Catullus: I was a Catholic in good standing. It was my niece’s baptism. I'm not some kind of reprobate, I made all of the necessary ritual purifications before receiving.
Juvenal: But you're a pagan.
Catullus: .......
Germanicus: Juvenal, can you stop tormenting Catullus and hand me that wash-cloth – there's still some blood on the back of the altar. Someone didn't clean up properly after Opsiconsivia.

(Juvenal obliges.)

Juvenal: So, did everyone get my message?
Germanicus: Yeah. Only I don't understand why I'm arguing in favour of homosexuality.
Juvenal: I believe that last time you had this argument Catullus was a gentleman and spoke up in support of your girlfriend. I figured you could return the favour so that this time we could hear what he really thinks.
Sheila: You people are sadistic.
Juvenal: Yeah, you would think that. That's why you get to be the arbiter. You can help us keep it between the navigational beacons.


(The curtain opens on a Roman style dining room, low table, long couches. The table is laid with a variety of snacks: figs, olives, bread, stuffed dormice, that sort of thing. The four interlocutors take up their positions, Sheila is at the head of the table.)

Sheila: You know the rules: keep the opening speeches short and to the point, after that you can squabble to your hearts content. If I see any ad hominems or generally bitchy behaviour I'm going to intervene. We've all agreed that, in the spirit of the first Symposium, we aren't going to be drinking tonight. (She produces 2 gallon jugs of red wine brought up from the Kirkman cellars and places them in the centre of the table.) But we'd better have this available for anyone who, like Socrates, can hold their liquor without clouding their reason. You've all drawn lots, and I believe that Ali is going first.

(Expectant silence. Ali stands.)

Ali: It's a little hard, because I'm supposed to speak in favour of homosexuality, and I just don't think it's even an issue. I realize that there's a long history associated with this, and that it goes back to certain concerns in ancient cultures, mostly surrounding the idea that somehow a man who engaged in homosexual behaviour would be effeminized by it. Obviously that's just a ridiculous argument in a modern context: we no longer believe that women are naturally inferior to men, and we understand now that gender is a lot more complicated than people used to think it was. I mean, it used to be argued that all kinds of socially constructed gender roles were “natural,” even really superficial things like the way that men and women wear their hair. It was considered natural for women to stay at home and do nothing but raise children. It was considered natural for men to exercise dominance over their wives, and even to use violence in order to secure obedience. Within that context, a man who played the “feminine role” in male intercourse was seen as relinquishing his natural privileges and behaving in an unnatural way. Today, we're able to recognize that those “natural” privileges are actually the result of a particular set of heteropatriarchal social arrangements which are inherently abusive, and we've made a lot of progress towards overcoming those male-dominated systems of valuation. We've also made tremendous progress towards understanding that gender is not a simple bipolar phenomenon, it exists on a spectrum, not just within society but within nature. There are people born with androgynous genitalia, people born with male genitalia who later become female, people born with female genitalia but which a masculine brain structure, and a wide variety of other conditions which simply weren't understood in the ancient world. Because we have a more sophisticated understanding of sexuality, and because we have a more egalitarian view of gender, it's only natural that we should shift our thinking about the goodness of homosexual relations. It's not a matter of throwing away the idea of natural moral inclinations, or of the inherent dignity of the person in relation to herself, but rather of recognizing that the way that nature was understood by the ancients was coloured by their social institutions, by their science, and by their cultural assumptions. It's just silly to act as if we haven't made advances in our knowledge, or positive changes in our social relationships when we have, and it's equally silly to insist on some outdated proposition just because it happens to appear to in certain prominent religious and philosophical texts.

(Ali returns to her perch.)

Catullus: She says she doesn't know what this issue is. Well I hardly know where to begin. It's bad enough a lot of little limp-wristed mollies congregating in their grotty bathhouses, infecting each other with crabs and scabies and other unmentionable diseases, but nowadays they have to be out of the closet, marching down Queen Street, frightening the children and blocking up traffic. It's disgraceful! They're everywhere. Lecherous old sods ogling adolescent boys in the schools, keeping them back for remedial attention after class. Butch drill-Sargents in far-flung countries with bizarre customs, initiating raw recruits into their disgusting practices. Power-mad sadistic queers clogging up the seminaries and buggering the choir boys --
Sheila: Point of order.
Catullus: It's a disgrace! A perfect disgrace. If I were Jove, I'd have brought out the lightning bolts long ago -
Sheila: Catullus!
Catullus: -- rained down a little brimstone on the Castro. That's what's needed --
Sheila: CATULLUS! Shut up! (There is a brief silence.) Thank you. I'm sure that we're all enjoying the Monty Python antics --
Catullus: Shows you what you know, you great nancy. I'm not doing Monty Python, I'm doing Kenneth Williams.
Sheila: Well whatever you're doing, your accent is outrageous, and you're not making an argument. If you need a couple of minutes to put together a speech --
Catullus: No, no. I can be perfectly serious. Just let me finish this glass of wine. (He downs it and pours another.) All right, I'm being serious now: The reason why the contemporary mind finds it so difficult to understand the prohibition on homosexual relations is that we have suffered a complete loss of understanding regarding the purpose of ethical ideals. People today talk about 'morality,' not realizing that this is a rather insipid little notion which arose in the course of the so-called 'Enlightenment' as an attempt to establish a system of conduct based entirely on reason. All of the aesthetic values were stripped from ethical theory, causing it to descend into some trite, reductionistic prohibitions on doing harm to others, and some jingoistic cant about “freedom.” Well that's not what ethics is. Ethics is not concerned with the questions like “how can I maximize pleasure and minimize pain for the greatest number” or “how may I act only that maxim by which I might at the same time will that it be a universal law.” It is concerned with the question of how I might live The Good Life. It is a practice which is deeply rooted in aesthetics, which involves seeking to produce one's life in accord with coherent stylistic principles in order to make of oneself a masterpiece. Now aesthetic beauty is not arbitrary. It must conform to certain set principles: harmony, symmetry, complementarity, composition, proportion, symbol, archetype. It's not enough for the artist to have lofty intentions. Lofty intentions, when combined with stylistic bankruptcy and lack of discipline can produce nothing but trite, pretentious crap. As in art, so also in sexuality. The proper use of the sexual faculty demands conformity with genuine aesthetic criterion, foremost of which are the complementarity of the sexes, and the creative energies latent in procreative-type acts. Homosexuality is incapable of achieving these criterion. It is a kind of parody of sexuality, an obscene doodle which effaces the truth about the body and renders null its highest creative act.

(Catullus bows elaborately and awaits applause.)

Germanicus: All right. I'm going to suggest that the problem with Catullus' exposition of the immorality of homosexual acts is that it assumes that sexual acts, as such, have a singular nature. Id est, it assumes that a heterosexual act and a homosexual act share the same fundamentally procreative nature, but that the homosexual act is an unnatural perversion. I'd like to argue that there's no grounds for accepting this thesis. So why do we accept it? First of all, there's a tradition which assumes that the reproductive system has a single natural purpose, that teleologically it is always oriented towards procreation, and all of its parts can only function naturally if they are put towards that end. Obviously this just isn't true. The phallus, for instance, also has a urinary function. There's no question of that being unnatural. So clearly we're faced with a problem, which is that the same human organs can have multiple natural purposes. The sexual function has a procreative purpose, which no one disputes, but arguably it also has the purpose of producing pleasure and relaxation. That's the thesis which Eurythmachus defends in the Symposium, and it was widely believed in the ancient world, by many people including the early Stoics, that the use of pleasure in accord with moderation in order to relieve sexual frustration and other forms of tension, was not only natural but necessary in order to maintain interior equilibrium. Which makes sense. For one thing, there's the pretty obvious fact that practically no one can actually limit their sexual release to those occasions when they intend to reproduce, and that if someone does manage to do this they're considered either superhuman or biologically asexual. There's also the fact that in most animals the reproductive system only naturally activates when it's time to reproduce. The rest of the time, birds and dogs all go around enjoying undisturbed freedom from sexual desire, it doesn't bother them, it doesn't wind them up, it's not something that they have to be constantly battling. The fact that human bodies don't work this way should tell us that something different is going on. And the different thing is that human bodies naturally seek out sexual release solely for the sake of pleasure. Now we could follow Plato, and conclude that pleasure is largely bad because it interferes with the action of right reason, but most people won't accept that argument because our natural reaction to pleasure is overwhelmingly to think of it as good. We could also follow Augustine and propose that human nature is somehow inherently distorted as a result of some primeval catastrophe, but that's not natural law, it's just a means of explaining why our natural intuitions and desires are at odds with Christian doctrine. Any reasonable, measured, objective evaluation of the facts, divorced from dogmatic considerations, will come to the conclusion that it is natural and normal to enjoy sex for non-procreative purposes, and that with respect to such usage the gender of one's partner can be rightly considered a matter of indifference.
(Germanicus resumes his post.)

Juvenal: I'll buy that, Germanicus, but I don't think that the issue with homosexuality has anything to do with whether or not it's procreative. It has to do with what it is. So let's clear away some of the deadwood in this discussion. First of all, lesbianism. Nobody has a serious problem with two ladies going at it, especially if they employ a web-cam so that the rest of us can benefit. People pretend to object just so that they look like they're being rationally consistent. Secondly, the idea that the problem is guys falling in love. The only reason our society is terrified of male love is that it can't properly separate love from sex. In other cultures, male friends could write each other mushy love letters, and kiss, and hold hands in public, and recline on one another's breasts, provided they didn't fuck. That's even in the Bible. Thirdly, the idea that the problem is men engaging in sexual acts together. Listen to comedy, folks: whenever gay sex is being portrayed positively, it's always two guys giving each other blow jobs. Whenever it's being portrayed negatively, it's always anal sex. Why? Because a guy performing fellatio on another guy is no more disgusting than a woman performing it on a man, and anyone who tells you that they find that gross is either a woman, or a liar. The issue is anal sex, specifically anal sex between guys. That's why if you get into these discussions, sooner or later they always come down to AIDS, and bathhouse culture, and barebacking, and BDSM, and all that gay shit, because that's what people are really reacting to. Now, the gay rights movement is going to tell you that this is “homophobia.” I'm going to tell you that it's nature. Does homosexuality exist in the animal world? Damn right it does. Specifically, it is the way that more dominant males express their superiority over submissive males. There are no gay wolves. There are boy wolves who get boned by other boy wolves in the process of the struggle to establish which of them will get the girl wolves. Ditto with every other species that engages in homosexual acts. It is, by nature, a means of establishing who is a player, and who is a loser. That's why all males naturally look with contempt on passive homosexuals, and why all males naturally react with fear to active homosexuals: because we're pack animals. When it comes right down to it we're a bunch of overcomplicated monkeys with delusions of grandeur. And like all monkeys, we look with respect towards the big dadda monkeys who are producing all of the baby monkeys, and we throw coconuts at the sissy little weakling monkeys. And it ain't gonna change, because that's the law of the jungle – the only natural law that's really natural, and actually a law.
Sheila: Okay. So that's the opening speeches over. Now we can start throwing coconuts at Juvenal.

(End of Part IX)

1 comment:

Please observe these guidelines when commenting:

We want to host a constructive but civil discussion. With that in mind we ask you to observe these basics of civilized discourse:

1. No name calling or personal attacks; stick to the argument, not the individual.

2. Assume the goodwill of the other person, especially when you disagree.

3. Don't make judgments about the other person's sinfulness or salvation.

4. Within reason, stick to the topic of the thread.

5. If you don't agree to the rules, don't post.

We reserve the right to block any posts that violate our usage rules. And we will freely ban any commenters unwilling to abide by them.

Our comments are moderated so there may be a delay between the time when you submit your comment and the time when it appears.