Monday, April 24, 2017

The New York Review of Books Gay Tilt?

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.
 The May 11, 2017 issue of The New York Review of Books had the (full page) photo (above) along with a “review” of an exhibition at the Japan Society (in New York City) called A Third Gender: Beautiful Youths in Japanese Edo-Period Prints and Paintings (1600-1868).
(The photo, of the beach boy,, has no connection to the Edo-Period prints, but I’ll provide a connection.)

Ian Buruma, Professor at Bard, hosts the “review” of the Edo-Print exhibition, and makes a clear point that the adoration of young men in the era under consideration, while having a sexual patina [shudo], is more to do with the aesthetic appreciation of the temporary beauty of boys before they mature (move to puberty).

The Japanese youth [wakashu] pictured and “worshipped” as the exhibited prints show are not depicted in pornographic poses but, rather, are shown to be immersed in activity that mimicked that of geisha.
The boy-love depicted by the Japanese prints illustrates the taboo topic of boy-love in the West, where seduction of youth is criminal. The Edo prints, in exhibition, had no illustrations of shunga, homosexual acts offering, rather, young boys being seduced by older women, generally.
The Japanese shudo is very like that of pederasty in ancient Greece: samurai warriors adopting boy-love much as Greek warriors – Achilles being an example – “adopted” young boys as sexual partners and aides.

As for the photo above – surrounded by a review of Caravaggio paintings, Caravaggio, himself, a homosexual renegade of the Baroque era – is not to be viewed lasciviously but as a paean to youthful beauty.

That the NYRB chose to include this handsome photograph, in context with reviews about homosexual art and artists, is, perhaps, troublesome, although I doubt that many practicing pedophiles subscribe to the Review.

Nonetheless, I feel that the boy photographed is not to be viewed as a sexual object but as an icon of innocent youth, something not to be marred by leering homosexual men (or cougarish women).

(The sources of the Edo prints pictured here appear in the image's JPG title.)


Friday, November 01, 2013

The Gay Marriage Debacle or Farce

Why would any sane homosexual or gay person wish to adopt the marriage sacrament, which is the license to engage in bestial acts that are condoned by established society?

Marriage between a man and a woman is an imprimatur for the natural law, that observation by Thomas Aquinas and Sigmund Freud about what sexual biology dictates for the procreation of human beings.

One understands the evolutionary purpose of the union of man and woman.

Gays however, while able to approximate [sic], that union, sexually and otherwise, the mission of homosexuals – not necessarily gays, who need the overt attention of society – is to enlighten society and civilization about the finer things in life, which is what homosexuals have been doing since time immemorial.

To sink into the basest activities of heterosexuals, gays make a mockery of what homosexual love is.

Again, we know it’s the self-aggrandizing and self-loathing homosexuals (found in that group with the sobriquet of “gay”) who are guilty of this perversion: adopting heterosexual proclivities and mannerisms in order to be accepted by society, which Tocqueville noted so completely in the middle 1800s.

Being “married” gives gays some societal accoutrements that seem necessary: access to illness and death procedures between partners, for instance. But those things can be done by lawyerly machinations without marriage, and many heterosexuals use such legal devices themselves, when not married but co-joined by partnerships of one kind or another.

Marriage between gays is an insult or worse. It subsumes the relationship of men-to-men or women-to-women, making their partnership, tawdry and banal as that of heterosexuals.

Being a gay or homosexual partner is a divine-inspired arrangement, as most homosexuals, over the millennia have noted.

To water that relationship down by slugging it with a marriage contract is not quite criminal but intellectually befouled in the worst sense.

But the hysteria about “marriage” is rampant and invidious now, so maybe that is an affliction beyond cure at the moment.

Let’s just hope that sane, sedate, and cultured homosexuals – not gays – restrain themselves and do not get infected by the attention-needing crowd of inverted individuals.