Look: it’s very simple.
Many people WANT to get married, and most people have a demonstrable
INCLINATION to have sex. But neither of these outcomes are guaranteed to
anyone, so we have to consider whether or not this desire is healthy. Now,
obviously, for millions of years heterosexuality has served an integral role in
the survival of the species, so if we presume upon the value of our survival,
there is a historical precedent for this particular set of instincts, enough so
that they should be allowed expression within the context of an ethic which,
despite marked variations between cultures, is fairly universal in its
ARCHETYPAL quality (foremost of which is the Damsel in Distress archetype,
arguably one of the oldest mythological archetypes to occur in every known
society, as well as the core underlying chivalry, law and order, and even the
same dogmatic, feministic ideologies which criticize it hypocritically, though
it is quite transparent that the men who reinforce these ideologies, often at
the expense of their own rational judgement, do so under the influence of this
irrational impulse). Such an ethic of “normativity” would thus have to comprise
the entire core of sexual regulation, as well as the EXTREMELY bureaucratic
(and even Kafkaesque) institution of consent, for without a tradition by which
to UNDERSTAND such principles such as marriage, love, romance, chivalry,
jealousy, loyalty and freedom, we would end up in the same position which
MacIntyre had courageously posited in After
Virtue: we would have the language of morality without its meaning, much
like people who “believe in science” but know nothing of its formal practice.
Of course, a rich history of literature, now assembled and made available
through the Global Internet, should THEORETICALLY allow us an advantage in
RESTORING the meaning of these traditional notions in such a manner that would
dissolve any lingering confusion between individuals, enabling them to act upon
their sexual impulses without any fear of rejection based upon either meaningless
arbitration (e.g. facial appearance or muscularity) or false accusations based
upon moral dubiousness (such as the sort of Kangaroo Court that one is subject
to when one must spend months, if not years, of one’s life trying to discern
the grounds for “a creepy vibe”, to see if this nebulous observation holds
merit). Unfortunately, any advantage that we might hope to gain over nations
with extremely limited Internet access is squandered by ignorance. I might, for
instance, present a prospective mate with this same article in the manner of a
“pickup line”, justifying a sexual advance by sheer self-evidence, or I might
write an epic poem in five acts, or a stage play more than two-hundred pages in
length, in order to try to advance towards my first act of sexual intercourse.
Yet none of these approaches would be guaranteed to work in securing an
audience, nor even for dispelling the absurd claims made against me, and two of
the three I can attest, from experience, to have failed, without any formal explanation.
As far as I am aware,
the only truly resounding literary precedent for the practice of homosexuality
is found in Foucault, though for reasons I cannot explain, even to myself, Foucault’s
personal tendencies, such as his willingness to spread H.I.V. even after having
been diagnosed with it, are STILL considered “a disorder” in precisely the same
manner that he criticized. “Mental health awareness” continues to run neck and
neck with “L.G.B.T.Q.A. rights”, though no one seems to “question” (even in a
group which claims that “Questioning” is just) that these two strains are not
COMPETING but CONFORMING to each other. How can a psychiatric institution
continue to operate in a society which has so wholeheartedly embraced the ethos
of poststructuralism? Could it be that perhaps the term “homophobia” is but
another addition to the starkly oppressive and utterly, incomprehensibly vague
Diagnostic Manual? Is it not possible, though such an Orwellian claim would
surpass even MacIntyre’s philosophy in radicalism, that an entire global
population, blessed with unprecedented technological power, would abuse it to
establish a Behaviourist State, wherein every gesture, even the presentation of
a dissenting opinion, is weighed against the diagnosis of an underlying FEAR,
such as “homophobia” or “racism”?
After all: why DON’T you
hear people debating the virtues or vices of homosexuality in the media? Why
would anyone, ESPECIALLY a heterosexual who has committed one’s life and
well-being to a more traditional path, PRESUME upon the integrity of this
deviant branch of thinking? If Foucault could argue that MAN is a recent
invention, cannot the same be said of homosexuality, as it is understood by the
L.G.B.T.Q.A? Who would simply PRESUME that heterosexuality and homosexuality
could coexist without either constant conflict or oppressive restriction by a
bureaucracy? Do we not appeal to the authority of the past constantly? And is
it not possible that any resolution or Hegelian synthesis which might be
imagined to exist between these starkly divergent sets of habits might be in
FACT a purely passive-aggressive state of affairs, a wool cast over the eyes of
the people, much like the SEEMING non-contradiction between the cults of
“Mental Health Awareness” and the “L.G.B.T.Q.”? Furthermore, if one were pious
in one’s devotion to the pursuit of mates of the same sex, perhaps owing to the
sort of conviction that Sappho or Wittgenstein held, or even Wilde, why would
one WANT to join a “group” that supervises this? Would the “L.G.B.T.Q.”, simply
by BEING AN ALLIANCE, cast doubt upon not only its own integrity but the
integrity of those whom it claims, with totalizing arrogance, to represent? What
right would we have to acknowledge it as thinkers? Certainly I have very little
PERSONAL investment in promoting an absolute CLAIM about the nature of
homosexuality and its virtues. What inspires contempt and even hatred within me
is the patronizing expectation that I would simply AGREE that “gays have
rights” because I would WANT people to agree in their position. I might WANT
people to acknowledge the virtues of my heterosexuality and even to consent to
help me to fulfill my personal sexual goals, as entitlements within a
meritocracy. But I cannot simply expect my DESIRES to be descriptive of my
character in such a manner that the State and Media MUST accept them, presuming
this character to be immutable and therefore any attempts made to alter it or
express skepticism of it to be oppression by the Mass. Nor can I simply have
the luxury of EXPECTING that if I were possessed of homophobia then the same
Mass would not be just as oppressive towards me for it. In truth, the only
PHOBIA which I possess is a rational response to an incomprehensible set of
circumstances which would only APPEAR to be an irrational delusion if I had to
convey them to an outsider. Namely, my phobia is that of the General Public and
the force of Popular Suggestion. People act as though they know something that
by their own definition *I* CANNOT know. I am led to believe, for instance,
that NINETY-SEVEN PER CENT of the adult population has had sexual intercourse,
though PERSONAL EXPERIENCE will evidence, as aforementioned, that this is
bureaucratically and legally nearly impossible. People parade in the streets,
in mobs as if on Carnival, professing “Pride”, which was considered, up until
only the last ten years, one of the seven DEADLIST of vices. Even a staunch
non-sectarian such as J. Krishnamurti admonished schoolchildren against it!!
How does the American Public expect to SELL it to me now??? What is there to be
PROUD of, any way? Desiring sex does not make me great, and I have even
recently been told, BY a female, that there WAS no rung of the rainbow flag
which represented me. Apparently, I am on an entirely different spectrum!! When
met with the slur of being “privileged”, I did my best to remain articulate
before so chilling a Fascist implication. I alluded to the pedestalization of
Jews by the Nazis, for instance, pointing out how being “privileged” and “controlling
the World” are irrational scare tactics used to oppress an all ready ailing
people. My comments, though dense and precise, however impulsively conceived,
were removed under the classification of “hate speech”, despite the fact that
not a single formal slur was uttered and the INITIAL slur was most probably
unredressed. Even social media determines what “is or is not hateful”, with
psychiatric absurdity, according to an entirely IRRATIONAL bias in favour of an
ideological absolute. It even PERMITS OVERTLY hateful language under the
auspices of spreading “AWARENESS”!! Where is Foucault now to tear it down???
It seems that an
alarming number of people within my own generation have given up on the pursuit
of objective criteria for social behavior, simply allowing one another to lead
amoral and meaningless lives. But if I can understand the absurdity of doing
so, that absurdity must extend to others; I am no exception, so how can I
exempt them from my findings? The very institution of consent as a legal mandate
for sexual intercourse implies that personal choices are largely meaningless
EXCEPT WITHIN the context of a social order; this was precisely the intuition
with which Foucault helped French intellectuals to depart from the rugged
Marxist individualism of Sartre. It follows logically that individual rights
MUST allow for individuals to speak out against ANY pattern of behavior in the
Public, and the Public can only be oppressive by stifling this criticism
arbitrarily. The most inalienable right is to judge, especially in the absence
of a God who does so and preserves our nonjudgmental charm. We must restore our
faith in Reason, knowing that it will only lead us to greater freedom and out
of the depraving confines of being disenfranchised and alienated. If
homosexuality is truly a virtue, its natural strengths will shine through its
perceived weaknesses. Yet this has not been done yet. The question of “why have
sex with partners of the same sex?” (other than the obvious puns on how one
shares sex with them all ready) is no more resolved than its predecessor: WHY
HAVE SEX? Experience seems to presume that the answer to this question is: THOU
SHALT NOT.
[({Dm.A.A.)}]
No comments:
Post a Comment