So -- a Man has a hetairos -- comrade; and there are hetaireiai -- bands of comrades.

Both terms are military.

And a Man's Comrade may also be his Beloved.

Phokion's son, a male "of no worth," heard "Theodorus the Atheist discourse in the Lyceum as follows: 'If there is no disgrace in ransoming a man beloved, the same is true of a woman loved; what is true of a comrade, is true also of a mistress.' "

And went ahead and bought the prostitute.

Does Plutarch agree with Theodorus the Atheist?

NO.

The point Plutarch's making is that only a male "of no worth," like Phokion's son, would be stupid enough to confuse a Manly Lover, a Warrior Lover, whose Love is Freely Given -- with a female prostitute -- whose services are paid for.

And again, as is always the case in the ancient world, it's a question of reason ruling passion.

Phokion's son, a male of no worth, is governed by his passion:

his passion leading him to think the argument sound

That's bad; and a clear marker of moral inferiority and therefore lack of manliness.

The Manly Male is ruled by his Reason -- not by his passions.

He's temperate -- he possesses self-control, sophrosyne -- the pivotal Greek civic virtue.

But the larger point I'm making is that in archaic and classical Greece, male-male was inextricably bound up with Fighting, both in sport and at arms, and therefore with Martial Values.

Love between Men was, as I've said, Manly, Martial, and Monogamous -- Phallic, Faithful, and Heroic.

And only a hedonistic and atheistic male like Phokion's son would confuse the True Love of Man for Man -- with lust for a prostitute.

Now -- here's another point:

Where does the word hetaira = paid companion = prostitute -- come from?

Well, according to Plutarch in yet another of his essays -- his Life of Solon -- hetaira = a nice way of saying "porne" = whore or harlot:

Now later writers observe that the ancient Athenians used to cover up the ugliness of things with auspicious and kindly terms, giving them polite and endearing names.

Thus they called harlots 'companions,' taxes 'contributions,' the garrison of a city its 'guard,' and the prison a 'chamber.'

~Plut. Sol. 15.3, translated by Perrin.

Harlot = whore = porne πορνη

'Companion' = paid companion = hetaira εταιρα

So -- if you feminize a Manly companion -- a hetairos -- he becomes a hetaira -- a prostitute.

Which is what we've seen in our contemporary world, in which effeminized males are promiscuous at a level rivaling that of prostitutes.

So -- Among the Greeks, Male-Male Love was inextricably linked to Martial Values and Manliness -- and considered the equal of, or slightly superior to, male-female love.

But again, whether the love or affection or just plain sex was male-male or male-female -- didn't matter to the Greeks.

What mattered to them was the moral comportment of the individuals involved.

As you've just seen.

And there are a great many anecdotes like the one about Phokion's son -- in Plutarch's enormous body of work.

For example -- here's one about Alexander:

[Alexander] severely rebuked Hagnon also for writing to him that he wanted to buy Crobylus, whose beauty was famous in Corinth, as a present for him. Furthermore, on learning that Damon and Timotheus, two Macedonian soldiers under Parmenio's command, had ruined the wives of certain mercenaries, he wrote to Parmenio ordering him, in case the men were convicted, to punish them and put them to death as wild beasts born for the destruction of mankind.

~Plut. Alex. 22.1, translated by Perrin.

What's at issue here is not the gender of the love-object or subject-of-desire, whether male prostitute or mercenary's wife -- but the behavior of those in love or lust.

In the same paragraph, and thus linked together, Plutarch tells us that Alexander, who was the Lover of Hephaestion, his "philtatos hetairos" -- most beloved companion -- "whom," Arrian says, "he loved better than all the world," and whom, Alexander himself said, "I valued more than my life" ; and whom he'd been with since childhood -- "severely rebuked" someone who offered to buy him a pretty boy ; and ordered put to death two soldiers who'd raped other soldiers' wives.

In both cases what's in question is sexual behavior, and because it's bad behavior, Alexander punishes those involved.

And again, whether the love or affection or just plain sex was male-male or male-female -- didn't matter to the Greeks.

What mattered to them was the moral comportment of the individuals involved.

As you've just seen.

Now -- is Plutarch the only ancient Greek author to write in these gender-neutral terms?

No.

They all do.

And I do mean all.

For example, here's something from Plato's Republic regarding rewards given for Valour in Battle:

"And don't you agree that the one who wins the prize of valor [aristeuo] and distinguishes himself shall first be crowned by his fellows in the campaign, by the lads and boys each in turn?" "I do." "And be greeted with the right hand?" "That, too." "But I presume you wouldn't go as far as this?" "What?" "That he should kiss and be kissed by everyone?" "By all means," he said, "and I add to the law the provision that during that campaign none whom he wishes to kiss be allowed to refuse, so that if one [he] is in love with anyone, male [arren] or female, he may be the more eager to win the prize."

~Plat. Rep. 5.468b,c, translated by Shorey.

Jowett's translation -- which is earlier than Shorey's -- is actually, I think, a bit better, at least for our purposes, in the crucial passage:

Let no one whom he has a mind to kiss refuse to be kissed by him while the expedition lasts. So that if there be a lover in the army, whether his love be youth or maiden, he may be more eager to win the prize of valour.

"whether his love be youth or maiden"

That says it all.

The promise of a "kiss" makes the Warrior more eager to win the "prize of valour" -- which is, by the way, aristeia -- "whether his love be youth or maiden."

Let's come back to Alexander:

Alexander was passionate about winning "glory" -- actually, timé -- the Worth which accrues to a Man through Prowess in Battle -- and so, he kept going, fighting and fighting, conquering and conquering.

At various times, his Men objected -- they wanted to go home.

Alexander didn't.

Here's part of a really great speech Alexander made to his Men -- on one such occasion:

Perhaps you will say that, in my position as your commander, I had none of the labours and distress that you had to endure to win for me what I have won.

But does any man among you honestly feel that he has suffered more for me than I have suffered for him?

Come now -- if you are wounded, strip [gymnuo = γυμνοω = to strip naked] and show your wounds, and I will show mine.

Come now -- if you are wounded, strip naked, and show your wounds, and I will show mine.

There is no part of my body except my back which has not a scar. Not a weapon a man may grasp or fling the mark of which I do not carry upon me.

I have sword cuts from close fight; arrows have pierced me; missles from catapults bruised my flesh; again and again I have been struck by stones or clubs -- and all for your sakes: for your glory [areté] and your gain [timé].

Over every land and sea, across river, mountain, and plain, I led you, a victorious army, to the world's end.

I married as you married, and many of you will have children related by blood to my own.

[There's no evidence that Alexander had any emotional interest in his two wives -- but he did arrange for both himself and Hephaestion to marry the daughters of the defeated Persian king -- so that they would be uncles to each other's children.]

Some of you have owed money -- I have paid your debts, never troubling to inquire how they were incurred, and even though you earn good pay and grow rich from the sack of cities.

To most of you I have given a circlet of gold as a memorial for ever and ever of your courage and of my regard.

And what of those who have died in battle?

Their death was noble, their burial illustrious; almost all are commemorated at home by statues of bronze; their parents are held in honor, with all dues of service or money remitted, for under my leadership not a man among you has ever fallen with his back to the enemy.

~Arrian, Anabasis. vii.10.1, translated by Aubrey de Selincourt

That is as good and as brilliant a description of Warrior Altruism as I've ever heard, and it's what makes Alexander -- aristos -- best, that is, most Manly -- among Men.

Alexander says

Come now -- if you are wounded, strip naked, and show your wounds, and I will show mine.

There is no part of my body except my back which has not a scar. Not a weapon a man may grasp or fling the mark of which I do not carry upon me.

And we can well imagine that he, being Greek, and accustomed and proud of being Nude among his Men, did indeed strip and point out each wound.

Hephaestion and Alexander hunt a stag

Plutarch lists those wounds, saying of Alexander that

He did not cover over nor hide his scars, but bore them with him openly as symbolic representations, graven on his body, of virtue [areté] and manly courage [andragathia].

~Plut. De Alex. 1.9, translated by Babbitt.

And as you'll understand once you've read the Lexicon, the entire Lexicon, what those words meant to a Greek and should mean to us is this:

He did not cover over nor hide his scars, but bore them with him openly as symbolic representations, graven on his body, of Manhood and Manly Excellence, Valour, and Goodness.

Which means, that scars earned in battle were "symbolic representations" -- the word in Greek is eikon -- εικων -- of -- MANHOOD.

Scars earned in battle were symbolic representations -- ikons -- of Manhood.

Fighting Manhood.

Which is Excellence, and Valour, and Virtue, and Worth, and Goodness.

Again, Manhood is symbolized by the scars earned in Battle.

Again, MANHOOD is FIGHTING MANHOOD.

Alexander, on horseback, on the left ; and Hephaestion, on horseback, on the right -- battle the Persians.

Again -- MANHOOD, for the Greeks, is a function of the Ability and Willingness to FIGHT.

So:

Having told us that Alexander bore his scars openly, Plutarch then has his hero say:

[M]y body bears many a token of an opposing Fortune and no ally of mine. First, among the Illyrians, my head was wounded by a stone and my neck by a cudgel. Then at the Granicus my head was cut open by an enemy's dagger, at Issus my thigh was pierced by the sword. Next at Gaza my ankle was wounded by an arrow, my shoulder was dislocated, and I whirled heavily round and round. Then at Maracandaf the bone of my leg was split open by an arrow. There awaited me towards the last also the buffetings I received among the Indians and the violence of famines. Among the Aspasians my shoulder was wounded by an arrow, and among the Gandridae my leg. Among the Mallians, the shaft of an arrow sank deep into my breast and buried its steel; and I was struck in the neck by a cudgel, when the scaling-ladders which we had moved up to the walls were battered down ; and Fortune cooped me up alone, favouring ignoble barbarians and not illustrious adversaries with such an exploit. But if Ptolemy had not held his shield above me, and Limnaeus taking his stand before me had not fallen, a target for ten thousand shafts, and if my Macedonians had not overthrown the wall with spirit and main force, then that nameless village in a foreign land must needs have become the tomb of Alexander.

And that last incident is what touched off Alexander's officers' complaints, and the old Boiotian soldier's response -- Fighting is a Man's job, my lord.

Plutarch adds this:

Moreover, there were the trials of the campaign itself : storms, droughts, deep rivers, the heights of the Birdless Rock, the monstrous shapes of savage beasts, an uncivilized manner of life, the constant succession of petty kings and their repeated treachery. Then there were also the difficulties before his expedition: Greece was still gasping over Philip's wars ; Thebes, staggering to her feet after her fall, was shaking the dust of Chaeroneia from her arms, and Athens was stretching forth a helping hand to join with Thebes. All Macedonia was festering with revolt and looking toward Amyntas and the children of Aeropus; the Illyrians were again rebelling, and trouble with the Scythians was impending for their Macedonian neighbours, who were in the throes of political change ; Persian gold flowed freely through the hands of the popular leaders everywhere, and helped to rouse the Peloponnesus [against Alexander]; Philip's treasuries were bare of money, and in addition there was owing a loan of two hundred talents (as Onesicritus records). In such poverty and in circumstances fraught with such uncertainty, a stripling, scarcely older than a boy, had the daring to hope for Babylon and Susa ; nay more, to conceive the project of dominion over all the world, relying only on the thirty thousand foot and four thousand cavalry which were his ; for, according to Aristobulus, that was the full extent of their number. But King Ptolemy puts them at thirty thousand foot and five thousand horse, Anaximenes at forty-three thousand foot, fifty-five hundred horse. And the great and glorious war-chest which Fortune had ready for him was only seventy talents, as Aristobulus says, though Duris says it was provision for only thirty days.

~Plut. De Alex. 1.2

Arrian -- who, as I said earlier, lived around the time of the Emperor Hadrian -- that is, in the second century AD, and was a formidable military Man in his own right -- although Greek, he commanded an entire border province of the Roman Empire and thwarted a barbarian invasion of that province -- Arrian, who as a soldier knew something about leading Men into battle and as a Stoic something about Manhood, Goodness, Virtue, Valour, and Worth -- ends his book with this encomium to Alexander:

Alexander died in the 114th Olympiad, in the archonship of Hegesias at Athens. He lived, as Aristobulus tells us, thirty-two years and eight months, and reigned twelve years and eight months. He had great personal beauty, invincible power of endurance, and a keen intellect; he was brave and adventurous, strict in the observance of his religious duties, and hungry for fame. Most temperate in the pleasures of the body, his passion was for glory only, and in that he was insatiable. He had an uncanny instinct for the right course in a difficult and complex situation, and was most happy in his deductions from observed facts. In arming and equipping troops, and in his military dispositions, he was always masterly. Noble indeed was his power of inspiring his men, of filling them with confidence, and, in the moment of danger, of sweeping away their fear by the spectacle of his own fearlessness. When risks had to be taken, he took them with the utmost boldness, and his ability to seize the moment for a swift blow, before his enemy had any idea of what was coming, was beyond praise. No cheat or liar ever caught him off his guard, and both his word and his bond were inviolable. Spending but little on his own pleasures, he poured out his money without stint for the benefit of his friends.

~Arrian, The Campaigns of Alexander, translated by Aubrey de Selincourt

That was Alexander.

We'll come back to him in the body of the Lexicon.

Now, as I did in Death of an AIDS Activist, I've made certain statements in this introduction / prolegomena which are at variance with what various dominant cultures -- in this case, primarily analism and heterosexism -- teach.

And which therefore govern your lives.

And I've backed up what I've said with citations, and wherever possible, with links -- so that you can read for yourself -- what ancient authors, as well as scholars of the last three centuries, have said.

And that presents you, the reader, with a quandary.

Because, if what I'm saying is true -- and it is -- then you're being lied to -- about matters which are very dear to your heart.

Your Manly Heart.

And you need to do something about that.

But you don't want to.

You're scared.

Afraid.

To do what it would take -- to make your life better.

That's your dilemma:

Something needs to be done, but you're afraid -- to do it.

You're cowards.

I mean that literally.

Here's what one young person who thinks of himself as "bi," said to me via email:

I'm too scared to come out. I love women too and I want to be a father and raise kids one day but my heart seems torn between this drive in me to he with another man. It's a thrill. I want to have that special guy to be my best friend and male lover but still be faithful to my future wife. I don't think that is possible because in marriage your supposed to be faithful to one person and only that person right?

"I'm too scared to come out."

He's a coward.

He's afraid to openly and honestly tell the world what he feels.

Even though there's nothing wrong with it -- and everything right.

Nevertheless, he's afraid.

I'll take up more of The Case of the Cowardly Cock-Rubber -- in a forthcoming post.

But I can tell you now that I was going to hire Perry Mason to investigate the case, but Mr Mason, in the guise of the very wealthy and very closeted actor who portrayed him, got fucked up the ass and died of AIDS.

I wonder if even one of you could tell me what lessons there are to be learned from that actor's life and death -- and how they apply to our Cowardly Cock-Rubber.

I wonder.

Because both you -- and he -- need to look at the lives of ancient Men -- and learn from them.

And from the lives of your contemporaries.

I said in the Preface that the "gay" community has now achieved virtually all of its goals.

How did "gay" people do that?

Primarily by coming out.

From the 1970s forward, you see, "gay" activists like myself -- and I was a gay-identified activist for close to 40 years -- maintained that if all same-sexers, as Gore Vidal put it, would simply come out, the weight of prejudice would not stand.

Why?

Because same-sex is a natural part of human behavior, and is therefore ubiquitous.

It's everywhere.

Which meant that once people did begin coming out in large numbers, Americans realized that not only might they have "gay" friends and "gay" fellow workers, but that they had "gay" family members.

And it's one thing to support discrimination against strangers -- usually, in the US, darker-skinned strangers.

But it's quite another to support discrimination against a member of your own family -- your mother, your sister, your aunt, your cousin, your nephew, your grandchild, etc.

No one -- other than the most radical of the religious right -- will do that.

That's the lesson of the last 40 years.

And yet, you -- the "men" of the Alliance -- resolutely REFUSE to come out.

Because you're cowards -- and I must say, IDIOTS.

Just incredibly STUPID.

"I'm too scared to come out."

Why?

The analists aren't -- why are you?

Because you're married and you're pussy-whipped?

What a puny excuse.

If your marriage is such that you're afraid of your wife -- wouldn't you be better off -- in a different marriage?

Or because you think there's a "stigma" attached to being "gay?"

First off, you're not "gay."

You're a Man.

What defines you is not some imaginary category of "sexual orientation," but your Manhood, Manliness, and Manly Spirit --

if you can ever find them.

Which you CANNOT and WILL NOT living a lie.

Moreover, here's a News Flash for ya: We now have six openly "gay," "lesbian," or "bi" -- Members of Congress.

We now have a de facto "LGBT" seat on the Supreme Court.

Even the Bush admin had a multitude of openly "gay" or barely closeted officials -- and the Obama admin of course has far more.

And that's just on the national level.

And there's now going to be an explosion in the numbers of elected officials, athletes, etc -- who "come out."

But -- thanks to you and your UN-manly cowardice -- the males among them will all be -- or be perceived to be -- analists.

Sodomites.

"Gay."

And won't that be a big boost for you?

NO.

It will make your life even worse than it is now.

You need to do something, and ONLY YOU can do it.

Because:

The liberation of any oppressed group -- can only be the work of the group itself.

You need to come out -- not as a "gay" or a "straight" or any other ridiculous label --

But as a Man.

And, as part of that process, and specifically to understand what a Man actually is --

Not what our society says a "man" is but what a Man actually is:

YOU NEED TO LOOK AT THE LIVES OF ANCIENT MEN -- AND LEARN FROM THEM.

So, and to return to our Lexicon and its Prolegomena:

First of all, I've shown you that among the ancient Greeks, Manhood was defined as the Man's Fighting Spirit -- his Willingness to Fight.

And that Ability to Fight -- mattered too.

So Manhood was inextricably linked -- to Fighting.

While in our own society, it's linked -- to fucking, and particularly to fucking women.

What's the difference?

CULTURE.

Ancient Greek culture said one thing -- our culture says another.

There are reasons for that -- but ultimately, it's arbitrary.

That doesn't mean, however, that neither culture is right.

In this case, the Greeks are right -- and our society, wrong.

Dead wrong.

That's first off.

Here's second off:

In ancient Greece, virtually all Men were what our culture calls "bisexual."

The Greeks didn't have that word or a word like it -- to them, to love both "male and female," both "youth and maiden" -- was normal -- normative.

Our society, by contrast, claims that all males are either "gay, straight, or lying."

Our society attempts to put ALL males into one of two boxes -- "gay" or "straight."

And the "gay" box is supposed to be quite small -- popular sex advice columnist Dan Savage has said that it's "tiny and stable."

In other words, in our society, just a very few males engage, we're told, in same-sex.

Whereas in ancient Greece -- All Men engaged in same-sex.

What's the difference?

CULTURE.

Ancient Greek culture was "gender-neutral," which means, in practice, and as you've just seen, INDIFFERENT to the gender -- that is, male or female, youth or maiden -- of a Man's love-object.

Our culture is OBSESSED with the gender -- male or female -- of a male's love-object.

Those two facts, which we may pose as questions:

1. How is Manhood defined? and

2. Gender of Love Object -- Important or Irrelevant?

Have an ENORMOUS IMPACT on your lives.

Because:

When a society defines Manhood not as Willingness to Fight, but as willingness to fuck, and in particular to fuck warm wet pussy, it pushes ALL MALES, and regardless of the gender of their sexual partner, into penetrative sex, including anal penetration.

Translation: One reason that gay-identified males are so eager to engage in anal penetration is that they are mimicking the majority, "heterosexual" and heterosexualized, culture.

Which requires penetration.

And that's also why they're so dismissive of any Man who refuses to do anal.

Nevermind that penetration makes sense only if what's being penetrated is a vagina -- and what you want to do -- is make a baby.

Then penetration makes sense.

Penetrating anuses -- makes no sense.

Unless your purpose is to mimic, albeit palely and weakly, the majority culture.

Because, as I pointed out in Death of an AIDS Activist, just as a liver isn't a heart or a lung a spleen, an anus is not a vagina.

If you don't understand that point, please read or re-read Death of an AIDS Activist.

Is it a good idea, by the way, for a minority to mimic a majority?

No.

It's a terrible idea, and it's always destructive.

And in America, these days, many minority members now understand that.

Most Jews no longer have their noses straightened, and most Blacks no longer have their hair straightened -- because they understand that it's self-oppressive -- to do that.

But the "gay male" community is still busily aping the "heterosexual" community in the matter of anal penetration, even though anal has been demonstrated, time and time again, to be the single most dangerous "sex" act any two people can perform.

Question:

When a minority apes or mimics or otherwise copies a majority, which changes -- the minority or the majority?

Let's find out by asking a couple more questions:

How many secularized American Jews celebrate Christmas?

Answer: A great many.

And how many American Christians celebrate Chanukah?

Answer: None.

So -- How Manhood is defined matters -- and, if you're a Man who doesn't and will not do anal -- it matters for you a very great deal.

As does the question of the gender of your sexual partner -- important or irrelevant?

Again, the ancient Greeks were indifferent to gender; our culture is obsessed with it.

And it is a CULTURAL difference.

It has NOTHING to do with biology or genetics.

It is CULTURAL.

Now -- let me give you an example -- from Sparta -- of how a culture, in this case an ancient Greek culture -- which is indifferent to gender, but which separates its boys and men from its girls and women in order to *fully* develop the males' Fighting Manhood -- then has to deal with issues of sexual desire.

The excerpts are from Plutarch's Life of Lycurgus -- the translator is Richard Talbert, whose book, which I strongly recommend -- get rid of the cable TV and start reading, guys -- is on the Heroes Reading List.

Lycurgus [the Spartan law-giver] did not put Spartiate children in the care of any tutors who had been bought or hired. Neither was it permissible for each father to bring up and educate his son in the way he chose.

Instead, as soon as boys reached the age of seven, Lycurgus took charge of them all himself and distributed them into Troops [the Spartan term was "herds"]: here he accustomed them to live together and be brought up together, playing and learning as a group. The captaincy of the troop was conferred upon the boy who displayed the soundest judgement and the best fighting spirit. The others kept their eyes on him, responded to his instructions, and endured their punishments from him, so that altogether this training served as a practice in learning ready obedience. Moreover as they exercised boys were constantly watched by their elders, who were always spurring them on to fight and contend with one another: in this their chief object was to get to know each boy's character, in particular how bold he was, and how far he was likely to stand his ground in combat.

The boys learned to read and write no more than was necessary. Otherwise their whole education was aimed at developing smart obedience, perseverance under stress, and victory in battle. So as they grew older they intensified their physical training, and got into the habit of cropping their hair, going barefoot, and exercising naked. From the age of twelve they never wore a tunic, and were given only one cloak a year. Their bodies were rough, and knew nothing of baths or oiling: only on a few days in the year did they experience such delights. They slept together by Squadron and Troop on mattresses which they made up for themselves from the tips of reeds growing along the River Eurotas, broken off by hand without the help of any iron blade. During winter they added the so-called thistledown and mixed it into the mattresses, since it was a substance thought to give out warmth.

By this age the boys came to be courted by lovers from among the respectable young men. The older men, too, showed even more interest, visiting the gymnasia frequently and being present when the boys fought and joked with one another.

This was not just idle interest: instead there was a sense in which everyone regarded himself as father, tutor and commander of each boy. As a result everywhere, on all occasions, there would be somebody to reprimand and punish the boy who slipped up. In addition a Trainer-in-Chief was appointed from among the men with outstanding qualities; they in turn chose as leader for each Troop the one out of the so-called Eirens who had the most discretion and fighting spirit. Those who have proceeded two years beyond the boys' class are termed Eirens, and the oldest boys Melleirens ('prospective Eirens').

So such an Eiren, twenty years of age, commands those under him in his Troop's fights . . .

[emphases mine]

~Life of Lycurgus, 15, 16, 17, translated by Talbert.

So the first thing we see is that the Spartans gender-segregated their kids.

The girls were raised at home -- the boys were separated from their mothers and raised in all-male troops which were in charge of older boys and ultimately, Men.

The boys did everything together, including sleeping together.

By that I don't mean sex -- I mean that they slept in all-male groups, and in the winter especially, most likely in body piles -- for warmth, if nothing else.

Further, the emphasis in this all-male upbringing and training -- was Fighting.

Fighting both individually -- one-on-one -- and in groups:

• The captaincy of the troop was conferred upon the boy who displayed the soundest judgement and the best fighting spirit.

• as they exercised boys were constantly watched by their elders, who were always spurring them on to fight and contend with one another: in this their chief object was to get to know each boy's character, in particular how bold he was, and how far he was likely to stand his ground in combat.

• The older men, too, showed even more interest, visiting the gymnasia frequently and being present when the boys fought and joked with one another.

• an Eiren, twenty years of age, commands those under him in his Troop's fights

There was a LOT of Fighting, and, again, it was part of the institution, part of the structure, of the agogé.

In the agogé, boys were encouraged -- and that's putting it mildly -- to develop and display Aggression -- that is, FIGHTING MANHOOD.

And as you'll see in the Lexicon, the purpose of all that Fighting was to enable the boys to UN-forget and fully develop -- their God-given and innate MANHOOD.

Now, if you read the text closely, you also saw that there was an emphasis on obedience.

So that one classicist has said that the Spartan Virtues were aggression and blind obedience.

I'll discuss the question of obedience, blind or otherwise, in the text of the Lexicon, and then at further length in a forthcoming post.

The critical point here is that the boys were put into gender-segregated groups -- ALL-MALE GROUPS -- at the age of seven, and stayed in those groups -- till at least the age of thirty.

In which the emphasis was upon Aggression -- Fighting Spirit -- Fighting MANHOOD.

The agogé -- which, says classicist Werner Jaeger, the other Greeks observed "with astonishment and admiration," was basically, a Manhood Machine.

Producing, faithfully and flawlessly, generation after generation, Manly Men.

Fighting Men.

And that was something the other Greeks recognized -- and ADMIRED:

As Jaeger says:

The rest of the Greeks saw with astonishment and admiration how every institution in Sparta served the same purpose -- to make Spartan citizens the best soldiers in the world. They understood very well that this was not done by incessant drilling and manoeuvring, but by moulding the character from earliest childhood. This education was not only military. It was political and moral in the broadest sense ...

"The rest of the Greeks saw with astonishment and admiration how every institution in Sparta served the same purpose -- to make Spartan citizens the best soldiers in the world."

One might as easily say,

The rest of the Greeks saw with astonishment and admiration how every institution in Sparta served the same purpose -- to make Spartan Men the most Manly in the world.

Is that a stretch?

NO.

Classicist JE Lendon:

Sparta was supreme in andreia.

Click on the link:

Andreia = Manhood, Manliness, Manly Spirit ;

Sparta was supreme in Manhood.

Because of the Spartan system of education.

Such an education, says Jaeger, "was not only military. It was political and moral in the broadest sense . . ."

And that's correct.

Because, and what's more -- the Spartans INSTITUTIONALIZED Male-Male Love -- Eros, which is Romantic Passion.

This has long been recognized among classicists.

Classicist JE Lendon:

At Sparta lover and beloved stood beside each other in the hoplite line; before battle the Spartans sacrificed to Eros, to love.

And, he adds,

such relationships were institutionalized, played a large role in the training of boys, and were thought to contribute to bravery in combat.

[emphasis mine]

Classicist Werner Jaeger:

It is, after all, easy to understand how a passionate admiration of noble bodies and balanced souls could spring up in a race which for countless years had prized physical prowess and spiritual harmony as the highest good attainable by man, and which had striven by grave and ceaseless rivalry, by exertion involving the utmost energies of mind and body alike, to bring those qualities to the greatest possible perfection.

Men who loved the possessors of those enviable qualities were moved by an ideal, the love for areté. Lovers who were bound by the male Eros were guarded by a deeper sense of honour from committing any base action, and were driven by a nobler impulse in attempting any honourable deed.

The Spartan state deliberately made Eros [Male-Male Love] a factor, and an important factor, in its agogé.

Lendon:

[male-male] relationships were institutionalized, played a large role in the training of boys, and were thought to contribute to bravery in combat.

Jaeger:

The Spartan state deliberately made Eros a factor, and an important factor, in its agogé.

So -- the boys were raised in gender-segregated, all-male groups in which the two most important components of Manhood -- in my view *and* that of the Greeks -- were consciously and purposefully inculcated -- Male Aggression, and Male Love.

Fighting Manhood -- andreia.

And Loving Manhood -- agapenor.

But -- there was a problem:

For, as a result, the Spartans soon found, the boys grew up -- having very little sexual interest in girls and women.

Oh yeah.

That's the Truth.

The historical record is crystal clear:

If, as the Spartans did, you put boys -- and Men -- into small, all-male groups, encourage and teach them to aggress, and give them Male Lovers --

Aggression and Male Love -- become their primary interests.

Which meant that the Spartans had Mighty Warriors -- but a mighty big problem:

How do we get our guys to -- reproduce?

Specifically, to fuck warm wet pussy.

The answer -- was this:

[Among the girls, Lycurgus] did away with prudery, sheltered upbringing and effeminacy [such as make-up and long hair] of any kind. He made young girls no less than young men grow used to walking nude in processions, as well as to dancing and singing at certain festivals with the young men present and looking on. On some occasions the girls would make fun of each of the young men, helpfully criticizing their mistakes. On other occasions they would rehearse in song the praises which they had composed about those meriting them, so that they filled the youngsters with a great sense of ambition and rivalry. For the one who was praised for his manliness and became a celebrated figure to the girls went off priding himself on their compliments; whereas the jibes of their playful humour were no less cutting than warnings of a serious type, especially as the kings and the Elders attended the spectacle along with the rest of the citizens.

There was nothing disreputable about the girls' nudity. It was altogether modest, and there was no hint of immorality. Instead it encouraged simple habits and an enthusiasm for physical fitness, as well as giving the female sex a taste of masculine gallantry, since it too was granted equal participation in both excellence and ambition. As a result the women came to talk as well as to think in the way that Leonidas' wife Gorgo is said to have done. For when some woman, evidently a foreigner, said to her: "You Laconian women are the only ones who can rule men,' she replied, 'We are the only ones who give birth to men.'

There were then also these inducements to marry. I mean the processions of girls, and the nudity, and the competitions which the young men watched, attracted by a compulsion not of an intellectual type, but (as Plato says) a sexual one.

In addition Lycurgus placed a certain civil disability on those who did not marry, for they were excluded from the spectacle of the Gymnopaediae [The Festival of the Naked Youths -- the most important Spartan holiday, in which the "boys of fighting age" performed martial dances -- nude]. In winter the magistrates would order them to parade naked in a circle round the agora, and as they paraded they sang a special song composed about themselves, which said that their punishment was fair because they were flouting the laws. In addition they were deprived of the respect and deference which young men habitually showed their elders.

Thus nobody objected to what was said to Dercyllidas, even though he was a distinguished general. When he approached, one of the younger men did not give up his seat to him, but said: 'You have produced no son who will give his seat to me.'

The custom was to capture women for marriage -- not when they were slight or immature, but when they were in their prime and ripe for it. The so-called 'bridesmaid' took charge of the captured girl. She first shaved her head to the scalp, then dressed her in a man's cloak and sandals, and laid her down alone on a mattress in the dark. The bridegroom -- who was not drunk and thus not impotent, but was sober as always -- first had dinner in the messes, then would slip in, undo her belt, lift her and carry her to the bed. After spending only a short time with her, he would depart discreetly so as to sleep wherever he usually did along with the other young men. And this continued to be his practice thereafter: while spending the days with his contemporaries, and going to sleep with them, he would warily visit his bride in secret, ashamed and apprehensive in case someone in the house might notice him. His bride at the same time devised schemes and helped to plan how they might meet each other unobserved at suitable moments. It was not just for a short period that young men would do this, but for long enough that some might even have children before they saw their own wives in daylight. Such intercourse was not only an exercise in self-control and moderation, but also meant that partners were fertile physically, always fresh for love, and ready for intercourse rather than being sated and pale from unrestricted sexual activity. Moreover some lingering glow of desire and affection was always left in both.

~Life of Lycurgus, 14-15, translated by Talbert.

And you can find the Life of Lycurgus, in the Perrin translation, here.

I prefer Talbert, but Perrin is fine too, except that sometimes he bowdlerizes -- changes the text to make it more "family-friendly."

Talbert doesn't.

For example, this is Perrin's translation of the Lycurgus, 15.1:

I mean such things as the appearance of the maidens without much [sic] clothing in processions and athletic contests where the young men were looking on, for these were drawn on by necessity, "not geometrical, but the sort of necessity which lovers know," as Plato says. [Republic, 458D]

Talbert says:

I mean the processions of girls, and the nudity, and the competitions which the young men watched, attracted by a compulsion not of an intellectual type, but (as Plato says) a sexual one.

Who's right?

Talbert.

Plutarch says specifically that the girls appeared stripped -- the Greek word is apodusis, which means stripped or undressed; and Plutarch in using that word, is making a play upon, and having referred to athletic contests -- the apoduterion -- the undressing room at the Palaistra, from which the boys and Men emerged -- nude.

The girls paraded and competed nude -- before the young men.

In order to awaken sexual feelings -- in those young men.

So -- what you can see -- I hope -- a blind man could see it -- but many of you are way beyond blind --

In any case, what you can see is that the Spartans had to induce their young Men -- to have intercourse with Women.

And they did that through a combination of the carrot and the stick.

Carrot, Part I:

They paraded the girls naked, and had them compete naked, before the "young men," so as to create "a compulsion not of an intellectual type, but (as Plato says) a sexual one."

Carrot, Part II:

They dressed the bride to look like a man, or perhaps, a boy, putting her in a man's cloak and shoes, and shaving her head to the scalp -- which is how the boys wore their hair in the agogé.

The groom spent only a short time with her -- long enough for some warm wet pussy, but not long enough to interrupt his accustomed routine of living and sleeping with other young Men:

After spending only a short time with her, he would depart discreetly so as to sleep wherever he usually did along with the other young men. And this continued to be his practice thereafter: while spending the days with his contemporaries, and going to sleep with them, he would warily visit his bride in secret, ashamed and apprehensive in case someone in the house might notice him. His bride at the same time devised schemes and helped to plan how they might meet each other unobserved at suitable moments. It was not just for a short period that young men would do this, but for long enough that some might even have children before they saw their own wives in daylight.

"It was not just for a short period that young men would do this, but for long enough that some might even have children before they saw their own wives in daylight."

That was the carrot, Part II -- the newly-married male, while having opportunities to fuck his wife, spent most of his time as he'd always spent it -- in gender-segregated, all-Male, environments.

The Stick?

Those males who refused to marry were publically humiliated and denied access -- to the Festival of the Naked Youths -- !

What this should tell you, then, is -- that despite what our society says, and what the "gay male" community in particular believes --

SEXUAL DESIRE IS GOVERNED BY CULTURE.

It means that, properly done, and done culturally, as part of a unified and very carefully thought-through culture -- you can raise boys so that as Men -- they prefer -- other Men.

Which means -- that sexual desire is NOT biological.

It's cultural.

Once again, GENDER -- that being, in the case of Males, the Male's inner feeling of Manliness -- is biological -- and spiritual.

But sexual desire -- which the analists and now most of the rest of society, calls "sexual orientation" -- is CULTURAL.

Now:

Am I alone in this opinion?

NO.

For example, Richard Horton, editor of the presitigious UK medical journal The Lancet, stated in a New York Review of Books article critiquing the search for a "gay" gene, that those looking for such a gene

adopt the idea of the homosexual as a physical "species" different from the heterosexual. But there are no convincing historical grounds for this view.

Did you hear that everybody?

There are NO convincing historical grounds for the idea that "gay" and "straight" constitute, in effect, two different species.

NO convincing historical grounds means NONE.

And you know guys, you need to read Horton's article.

And you need to save it to your hard drive too.

Because right now it's just out there in cyberspace sitting on a website.

And that website may decide to take the article down.

You need to read and save the article.

Now:

If there are "no convincing historical grounds," as Horton says, and I've just shown you in the case of Sparta, for "gay" and "straight" being immutable and eternal categories -- where does that particular idea of "gay" come from?

Well, guys, for many years I was a "gay" activist.

And I can tell ya, cause I was there:

"Gay" exists for political reasons.

It's easier to argue for "gay" rights if you can make it appear that "gay" is similar to -- having "black" skin.

A genetic condition which is, in effect, immutable.

But what Horton says is correct -- there are no convincing historical grounds for that view.

Neither "homosexual" nor "heterosexual":
Zeus, King of the Gods,
with his wife Hera -- and
his male lover Ganymedes

NONE.

It was made into holy writ by the "gay" movement because it was POLITICALLY EXPEDIENT.

But that does NOT make it true.

Which is why the academy on the whole does not support it.

I'm talking about folks like historian Jonathan Ned Katz, who says

Contrary to today's bio-belief, the heterosexual/homosexual binary is not in nature, but is socially constructed, therefore deconstructable.

And Professor Joan Roughgarden of Stanford University as quoted in Scientific American in 2008:

We should be calling humans bisexual because this idea of exclusive homosexuality is not accurate of people. Homosexuality is mixed in with heterosexuality across cultures and history.

While in the same article, sociologist Eric Anderson of the University of Bath in England says

Animals don't do sexual identity. They just do sex.

[And, he adds, in humans,]

the categories of gay and straight are socially constructed.

And you see, that presents you with a problem.

Because, if you don't believe me, you have to refute not just me -- Bill Weintraub -- but Richard Horton and Jonathan Katz and Joan Roughgarden and Eric Anderson too.

Not to mention John Ibson, whose book Picturing Men (it's on the Heroes Reading List) also greatly calls into question the idea of male-male as a condition.

And his book is long and scholarly.

So now you've got not only to refute Bill, but Richard and Jonathan and Joan and Eric and John Ibson -- and the many scholars, such as Michel Foucault, he cites -- too.

That's a problem.

Especially because none of those people are lying.

They're all telling the Truth.

So -- my work is about culture, and the way culture impacts sexual desire.

My first published piece was titled

or

Some Thoughts on Cock-rubbing

and the Cultural Tyranny of Butt-fucking

"The cultural tyranny of butt-fucking"

A tyranny is a form of government.

And that's what I'm talking about:

The Governance of Desire.

Now, obviously, not all desire is culturally governed.

Some of it is biological -- for example, I have a male dog, and while he's very handsome, and aggressive, and loving too, I have no desire to have sex with him -- because we're not of the same species.

But, between and among human beings, and as you just saw in the case of Sparta, culture has a great deal to say about who we find attractive, who we go to bed with, and what we do once we are in bed.

That's what my work is about.

And it's my position, which is strongly supported by the facts, facts which you just read -- that sexual desire and the expression of that desire is strongly shaped -- in effect, governed -- by culture.

While gender -- again, in the case of males, the male's inner feeling of being a Man -- is biological and spiritual.

And, if you read Death of an AIDS Activist, you'll see that Chastity/Chaz Bono -- agrees with me -- at least on the second point.

Gender is biological.

Sexual desire is governed by culture.

Classicist KJ Dover, an expert on Greek "homosexuality":

Wherever and whenever the homosexual [sic] ethos of the Greek world originated, the simple answer to the question 'Why were the Athenians of Plato's time so fond of homosexual [sic] relations?' is 'Because their fathers and grandfathers were'.

Obviously, I disagree with Dover's use of the term "homosexual."

"Same-sex" or "male-male" would be a far better and far more accurate descriptor.

But that's, for today anyway, a quibble.

Dover's point is that the Athenians -- and Spartans and all the other Greeks -- were "fond of male-male relations" -- because their fathers and grandfathers were.

That is to say, for reasons of culture.

Their CULTURE dictated -- their desire.

Just as our culture -- seeks to dictate ours.

Once again, because in my experience, this bears repeating and repeating and repeating:

My work is about culture and cultural tyrannies in the area of sex and sexual desire.

My first published article, published in 1999 -- 14 years ago -- was titled:

or

Some Thoughts on Cock-rubbing

and the Cultural Tyranny of Butt-fucking

If butt-fucking is a *cultural* tyranny -- which it clearly is -- then buttfucking isn't biological -- it's cultural.

Otherwise, buttfucking would be universal.

It's not.

Gender is biological -- as Chastity/Chaz so pointedly makes clear.

Sexual desire is not.

Sexual desire is mediated and shaped and, in our day, dictated -- by culture.

And that's what my work is about

The politics of 'sexuality'

The Governance of Desire.

Yet many of you still don't understand that very basic point.

You still don't get it.

Not even after 14 years.

So probably you never will.

But -- it's true nevertheless.

Sexual desire is culturally-governed -- it's cultural.

In some cultures Men are taught to desire "heavy" Women ; in others, like ours, the cultural ideal of Woman is thin and boyish.

In today's "gay" culture, and since 1975, the anus has been declared the ultimate object of sexual desire.

But as gay-identified writers like Chauncy and Rotello have pointed out, prior to the 1970s, oral and various forms of mutual masturbation were the favored forms of "gay" sex -- and anal was a denigrated and fringe activity.

What changed?

Biology?

No.

Culture.

And that's very clear with the Greeks.

Because in ancient Greece, and despite the universality of male-male, anal was proscribed -- forbidden -- and Sokrates himself refers to the lives of analists as "terrible, shameful, and wretched."

So sexual desire is governed by culture.

While gender -- is biological -- both outwardly, in terms of the sex organs and secondary sexual characteristics -- and inwardly -- in terms of the Man's inner feeling -- of being a Man.

Are there cultural elements to gender?

Sure.

But True Gender -- what the trannies call "core gender identity" and which is "core" because it's experienced as "inner" -- is biological.

Nevertheless, there are cultural elements to the way certain elements of gender -- are expressed.

So -- during her/his transition, Chastity/Chaz told the press that she/he felt "very traditionally male."

Anthropologists and others who study gender call that sort of "traditional masculinity" -- "social" or "cultural masculinity."

It's cultural -- as distinct from the Man's inner feeling of Manliness.

Easy example:

In Saudi Arabia, the king and male members of his family are expected to wear flowing robes.

In Great Britain, the prince-consort and male members of the royal family -- Prince Philip, Prince Charles, Princes William and Harry, etc -- are expected to wear suits and ties.

The difference in dress is traditional -- and cultural.

But -- in both countries, the males of the royal family are expected to serve in the military -- that is, to express Aggressive, Warrior, Manhood.

Which comes, without question, from the Man's inner feeling -- of being a Man.

For, as my foreign friend puts it, "Fighting Spirit is the Hallmark of Masculinity."

And that is NOT cultural.

It's inward and inner.

Nor is it something which comes simply from testosterone.

As I said, earlier, I have a male dog, who like most male dogs in the US, has been neutered.

He has no testicles, and therefore no testosterone.

Yet he's FAR MORE AGGRESSIVE than any female dog I've ever owned, including my last, who was roundly considered "an aggressive female dog."

Which she was -- she was aggressive for a female.

But WAY LESS AGGRESSIVE -- than her male successor -- who, by the way, is of the same breed.

There's a difference.

A big difference.

So:

Sexual desire is governed by culture.

Gender -- is biological -- both outwardly, in terms of the sex organs and secondary sexual characteristics -- and inwardly -- in terms of the Man's inner feeling -- of being a Man.

Warrior NW, by the way, asked that I make that distinction very plain to you guys.

And that's what I'm doing: