Here are some excerpts from Xenophon's Symposium:

It [the Symposion] was on the occasion of the horse-races at the greater Panathenaic games; Callias, Hipponicus' son, was enamoured, as it happened, of the boy Autolycus, and in honour of his victory in the pankration had brought him to see the spectacle. When the racing was over, Callias proceeded on his way to his house in the Peiraeus with Autolycus and the boy's father; Niceratus also was in his company.

. . .

Autolycus took a seat by his father's side; the others, of course, reclined.

A person who took note of the course of events would have come at once to the conclusion that beauty is in its essence something regal, especially when, as in the present case of Autolycus, its possessor joins with it modesty and sobriety.

And here are two Greek words that we need to consider.

The first is modesty or aidos (αιδος).

Aidos can mean modesty -- and respect -- and also a sense of shame -- it's also used sometimes in the sense of honor -- the sense of honor which prevents a Man from running away and deserting his comrades in battle.

And the second is the word which Todd has here translated as "sobriety," but which also means temperance, self-control, prudence, even chastity.

Like agon and areté, it's a key word among the Greeks, and it's sophrosyne (σωφροσυνη).

And sophrosyne is really important.

As you may remember, sophrosyne or self-control is one of the Five Divine Virtues, and it often appears in the middle of the list -- it's pivotal:

Piety

Courage

Self-Control

Justice

Wisdom

So -- self-control really matters.

Especially to a military man like Xenophon, who spent much of his life either at Sparta or nearby.

Because as we saw in The Secret Craft of Warriorhood, and according to classicist J E Lendon,

. . . Spartans were open to the possibility, radical in the fifth century [BC], that physical courage itself was a consequence of training, rather than inborn. "Man differs little from man by nature, but he is best who trains in the hardest school," Thucydides has a Spartan king say. It is probably from the Spartans that intellectuals of the fifth and fourth centuries got the idea that courage was a function of experience or a mixture of training and inborn quality, an idea elaborated in philosophy into the doctrine that courage was a function of knowledge. . . .

. . .

[O]ne thing that set the Spartans apart from the other Greeks was their belief that many noble excellences could be taught, and their public care to see to it that they were. At seven a Spartan boy was taken from his mother and raised in barracks, beneath the eyes of older boys. Boys were whipped to inculcate respect (aidos) and obedience; they went ill-clad to make them tough; and they were starved to make them resistant to hunger. They were schooled to silence and taught to look at the ground while walking to train them in the supreme Greek civic virtue of self-control (sophrosyne). The cruel [sic] Spartan regime was believed to make Spartans brave. In short, as a frantic Athenian admirer of Sparta put it, "more men are excellent [agathos, the Homeric term] from practice than from nature."

. . .

To the Spartans hoplite training was not a low techne, but rather training in the secret craft of warriorhood. . . .

Aidos and sophrosyne --

αιδος και σωφροσυνη --

Modesty and Self-control.

With that in mind, let's get back to Xenophon:

A person who took note of the course of events would have come at once to the conclusion that beauty is in its essence something regal, especially when, as in the present case of Autolycus, its possessor joins with it modesty and sophrosyne -- self-control.

For in the first place, just as the sudden glow of a light at night draws all eyes to itself, so now the beauty of Autolycus compelled every one to look at him. And again, there was not one of the onlookers who did not feel his soul strangely stirred by the boy; some of them grew quieter than before, others even assumed some kind of a pose.

Now it is true that all who are under the influence of any of the Gods seem well worth gazing at; but whereas those who are possessed of the other Gods have a tendency to be sterner of countenance, more terrifying of voice, and more vehement, those who are inspired by chaste Love [sophronos Erotos] [σωφρονος Ερωτο&sigmaf] have a more tender look, subdue their voices to more gentle tones, and assume a supremely noble bearing. Such was the demeanour of Callias at this time under the influence of Love; and therefore he was an object well worth the gaze of those initiated into the worship of this God.

So:

All of the onlookers -- who are all Men, remember -- feel compelled, because of his beauty, to look at Autolycus;

and doing so is for them a "soul-stirring" experience.

So -- right from the git-go, Xenophon associates Male Beauty -- and because Autolycus is a Victor in Pankration I think we can safely say that he's possessed of Brave Beauty -- that is, Male Beauty which is linked to Male Aggression -- aggression and the beauty of guys --

Right from the git-go, Xenophon associates the Brave Beauty of Aggressive Men -- with the soul.

To look at this exemplar of Brave Beauty is to feel one's "soul strangely stirred."

And ALL the Men at the symposion experience that feeling.

Now: Callias is in love with the boy.

And it's a Love inspired -- the Greek word for inspired is "en-theos" which actually means "full of the God" -- so it's a Love "in-Godded" -- by Eros.

Callias, says Xenophon, is "inspired by chaste or temperate or self-controlled Love" -- and the words in Greek are sophronos -- which is derived of course from sophrosyne -- and Erotos, Love -- in this case, a temperate, prudent, Love -- and entheoi -- full of the God.

So Callias is full of the temperate or prudent God of Love.

Love for another Male.

And that temperate and prudent Love of another Male gives Callias, says Xenophon, "a supremely noble bearing" -- and the word for noble here is eleutherios, which also means "free."

So -- this is quite a statement.

That a temperate and prudent Love for another Male, a Male Worthy of that Love, imparts nobility and freedom -- to the Lover -- in this case, Callias.

And please think about that, and compare and contrast it to the world in which you live, a world in which condoms and pills designed to prevent a disease spread through an ignoble act -- anal penetration, which was universally condemned by the Greeks -- and a base behavior -- promiscuity -- which was also condemned by the Greeks -- is not only front page news in your nation's paper of record, but is presented as not just "good news" -- but as "the best news" --

The Times:

The results are the best news in the AIDS field in years. . .

Suppose instead the Times had had a front page article titled "Men who Love Men are rejecting anal and promiscuity."

And described that as "the best news in the AIDS field for years."

You see, HIV is transmitted by anal penetration.

And spread far and wide by promiscuity.

The pill just developed is meant, as we saw, to facilitate both acts.

To make them "safer."

Well, maybe you can make them "safer" for the body -- but THEY WILL NEVER BE SAFE, THEY WILL NEVER BE GOOD, FOR THE SOUL.

And that's what Sokrates proceeds to demonstrate.

The conversation turns to perfume, and the superiority of ordinary olive oil, with which guys used to anoint themselves at the palaistrai-gymnasia:

"That may do for young fellows," observed Lycon; "but what of us who no longer exercise in the gymnasia? What should be our distinguishing scent?"

"Nobility of soul, surely!" replied Socrates.

"And where may a person get this ointment?"

"Certainly not from the perfumers," said Socrates.

"But where, then?"

"Theognis has said:

'Good men teach good; society with bad
Will but corrupt the good mind that you had.' "

"Do you hear that, my son?" asked Lycon.

"Yes, indeed he does," said Socrates; "and he puts it into practice, too. At any rate, when he desired to become a prize-winner in the pankration, he availed himself of your help to discover the champions in that sport and associated with them; and so, if he desires to learn the ways of virtue, he will again with your help seek out the man who seems to him most proficient in this way of life and will associate with him."

Thereupon there was a chorus of voices. "Where will he find an instructor in this subject?" said one. Another maintained that it could not be taught at all. A third asserted that this could be learned if anything could.

At this point Sokrates says, That's a very serious discussion and we're not going to go there tonight.

But, they do.

First, there's some entertainment.

The dancing girl dances, and then,

At this point the [Syracusan dancing] boy performed a dance, eliciting from Socrates the remark, "Did you notice that, handsome as the boy is, he appears even handsomer in the poses of the dance than when he is at rest?"

And I included that quote because I want you to see that Sokrates is not a "prude" -- he's more than willing to comment on the physical attractiveness of a dancing boy.

BUT -- when it comes to the behavior of those in Love, he counsels Prudence -- Self-Control -- Temperance.

And he starts by acknowledging the power of the mighty God, Eros:

From Xenophon's Symposium:

Socrates now opened up another new topic for discussion. "Gentlemen," said he, "it is to be expected of us, is it not, when in the presence of a mighty deity that is coeval with the eternal Gods, yet youngest of them all in appearance, in magnitude encompassing the universe, but enthroned in the heart of man -- I mean Eros -- that we should not be unmindful of him, particularly in view of the fact that we are all of his following?

For I cannot name a time when I was not in love with some one, and I know that Charmides here has gained many lovers and has in some instances felt the passion himself; and Critobulus, though even yet the object of love, is already beginning to feel this passion for others.

So -- Sokrates and the other Men are in the presence of the mighty God Eros because Callias is in love with Autolycus.

Indeed, all the Men at the symposion, says Sokrates, are followers of Eros.

Meaning that they ALL have, throughout their lives, LOVED other MEN.

Sokrates:

For I cannot name a time when I was not in love with some one

That's a very clear statement -- isn't it -- of the ubiquity of Male Passion for other Males.

As my foreign friend says:

Male desire for other Men cannot be tied to a minority group.

It is, rather, a Universal Phenomenon, especially strong among MASCULINE Men.

Male desire for other Men cannot be tied to a minority group -- like "gays."

It is rather a Ubiquitous and Universal Phenomenon, especially strong among MASCULINE Men.

A point which Sokrates proceeds to emphasize:

But as for you, Callias, all the city knows that you are in love with Autolycus, and so, I think, do a great many men from abroad. The reason for this is the fact that you are both sons of distinguished fathers and are yourselves in the public eye.

Now, I have always felt an admiration for your character, but at the present time I feel a much keener one, for I see that you are in love with a person who is not marked by dainty elegance nor wanton effeminacy, but shows to the world physical strength and stamina, virile courage and sobriety. Setting one's heart on such traits gives an insight into the lover's character.

So -- we can see that the love object, though a boy, has Manly qualities -- he fights in the Pankration, and "shows to the world physical strength and stamina, virile courage and sobriety."

And of course, "sobriety" is sophrosyne.

Physical strength and stamina, virile courage and sobriety --

these are all attributes of Masculinity and of what we call Brave Beauty, and, says Sokrates,

Setting one's heart on such traits gives an insight into the lover's character.

So -- the love object, the beloved, is a Victor in Pankration.

He's a FIGHTER.

MANLY and MASCULINE:

And his Manly Aggression is the source of his Brave Beauty.

Like I -- and Warrior NW -- said:

aggression and the beauty of guys

His beauty, then, is both physical and moral.

He's possessed of physical strength, stamina, VIRILE COURAGE, and --

SOBRIETY.

PRUDENCE.

PRUDENCE IS AN ATTRIBUTE OF MASCULINITY AND MANLINESS.

Promiscuity is NOT.

As Sokrates makes very clear:

Now, whether there is one Aphrodite [the Goddess of Love] or two, 'Heavenly' and 'Vulgar,' I do not know; for even Zeus, though considered one and the same, yet has many by-names. I do know, however, that in the case of Aphrodite there are separate altars and temples for the two, and also rituals, those of the 'Vulgar' Aphrodite excelling in looseness, those of the 'Heavenly' in chastity.

One might conjecture, also, that different types of love come from the different sources, carnal love from the 'Vulgar' Aphrodite, and from the 'Heavenly' spiritual love, love of friendship and of noble conduct. That is the sort of love, Callias, that seems to have you in its grip.

I infer this from the noble nature of the one you love and because I see that you include his father in your meetings with him. For the virtuous lover does not make any of these matters a secret from the father of his beloved."

"Marry," quoth Hermogenes, "you arouse my admiration in numerous ways, Socrates, but now more than ever, because in the very act of flattering Callias you are in fact educating him to conform to the ideal."

"True," he replied; "and to add to his pleasure, I wish to bear testimony to him that spiritual love is far superior to carnal."

Now, I have to interrupt Sokrates for a moment with this question -- when he says Spiritual Love, does he mean a Love without any sexual component?

No.

The consensus among scholars is that the Greeks accepted and welcomed sexual Love between males so long as it was EXCLUSIVE -- FAITHFUL -- and expressed through frottage -- NOT anal.

This is made crystal clear in one of Plato's Sokratic dialogues titled Gorgias.

In it, Sokrates debates three rhetoricians -- the very distinguished Gorgias of Leontinoi, and two of his students -- Polus and Callicles.

The rhetoricians taught that the pleasurable was the good.

That therefore, men should seek to maximize pleasure.

Which in turn let to a sort of "might makes right" argument -- in favor of learning how to manipulate the state and ultimately seize power.

Because the tyrant can indulge any and every whim -- as the Roman emperors eventually demonstrated.

But -- that's in the future.

At the time of the Gorgias, Rome was just a speck of a town in Italy, Athens and Sparta were vying for power in Greece, and most people thought Athens -- a great commercial center and thus a place of many pleasures -- would win.

To rule Athens, then, would be to sit at the top of the heap.

And it's that prospect which the rhetoricians were, sometimes quietly and sometimes not, dangling before their students.

In this section of the Gorgias, Sokrates is in heated debate with one of those students, Callicles -- who is most open in his pursuit of self-advantage:

Socrates. Come now, let me tell you another parable:

Consider if each of the two lives, the temperate and the licentious, might be described by imagining that each of the two men had a number of jars; the one man has his jars sound and full, one of wine, another of honey, and a third of milk, besides others filled with other things, and the sources which fill them are scanty and difficult, and he can only obtain them with a great deal of hard toil. Well, one man, when he has taken his fill, neither draws any more nor troubles himself a jot, but remains at ease on that score. The other, in like manner, can procure sources, though not without difficulty; but his vessels are leaky and unsound, and night and day he is compelled to fill them constantly, and if he pauses for a moment, he is in an agony of extreme distress. If such is the nature of each of the two lives, do you say that the licentious man has a happier one than the orderly? Do I not convince you that the opposite is the truth?

Callicles. You do not convince me, Socrates, for the one who has filled himself has no longer any pleasure left; and this, as I was just now saying, is the life of a stone: he has neither joy nor sorrow after he is once filled; but a pleasant life consists rather in the largest possible amount of inflow.

Soc. Well then, if the the inflow be large, must not that which runs away be of large amount also, and the holes for such outflow be of great size?

Cal. Certainly.

Soc. The life which you are now depicting is not that of a dead man, or of a stone, but of a plover [a bird thought to drink and then to eject the liquid]; you mean that he is to be hungering and eating?

Cal. Yes.

Soc. And he is to be thirsting and drinking?

Cal. Yes, that is what I mean; he is to have all his desires about him, and to be able to live happily in the gratification of them.

Soc. Capital, excellent; go on as you have begun, and have no shame; I, too, must disencumber myself of shame: and first, will you tell me whether you include itching and scratching, provided you have enough of them and pass your life in scratching, in your notion of happiness?

Cal. What a strange being you are, Socrates! a regular stump-orator.

Soc. That was the reason, Callicles, why I scared Polus and Gorgias, until they were too modest to say what they thought; but you will not be too modest and will not be scared, for you are such a manly fellow. And now, answer my question.

Cal. I answer, that even the scratcher would live pleasantly.

Soc. And if pleasantly, then also happily?

Cal. To be sure.

Soc. But what if the itching is not confined to the head? Shall I pursue the question? And here, Callicles, I would have you consider how you would reply if consequences are pressed upon you, especially if in the last resort you are asked, whether the life of a male who is anally receptive is not terrible, shameful, and wretched? Or would you venture to say, that they too are happy, if they only get enough of what they want?

Cal. Are you not ashamed, Socrates, of introducing such topics into the argument?

Soc. Well, my fine friend, but am I the introducer of these topics, or he who says without any qualification that all who feel pleasure in whatever manner are happy, and who admits of no distinction between good and bad pleasures? And I would still ask, whether you say that pleasure and good are the same, or whether there is some pleasure which is not a good?

~translated by Jowett and Lamb

To believe otherwise leads to analism.

As Sokrates has just proven.

If you don't understand that, go back to the beginning of the excerpt from the Gorgias, and re-read it.

Soc. But what if the itching is not confined to the head? Shall I pursue the question? And here, Callicles, I would have you consider how you would reply if consequences are pressed upon you, especially if in the last resort you are asked, whether the life of a male who is anally receptive is not terrible, shameful, and wretched? Or would you venture to say, that they too are happy, if they only get enough of what they want?

Cal. Are you not ashamed, Socrates, of introducing such topics into the argument?

Soc. Well, my fine friend, but am I the introducer of these topics, or he who says without any qualification that all who feel pleasure in whatever manner are happy, and who admits of no distinction between good and bad pleasures? And I would still ask, whether you say that pleasure and good are the same, or whether there is some pleasure which is not a good?

You'll notice that Callicles doesn't actually agree with Sokrates about the shitfaeries.

He instead answers Sokrates' question -- with a question.

Why?

Because Sokrates has him over a barrel.

Without a doubt, Callicles privately believes, just like any hedonist, that anal is fine.

Any pleasure is fine so long as you get away with it.

Thus the pill.

We won't question anal -- we'll just make it "safer."

But -- Callicles doesn't dare say to Sokrates -- anal is okay.

Because anal was proscribed.

Any buttboy who tells you different is lying.

Sokrates' words are clear.

Callicles' reaction is clear.

He's an ancient Greek -- and he doesn't dare defend anal.

If he could -- he would.

He would say it's good to stratch an itch -- and it's good to be a kinaidos -- to get fucked.

He doesn't dare.

Anal is forbidden.

And all of Callicles' argument therefore -- is undone.

And Sokrates -- having used the question of anal to defeat Callicles -- and make no mistake, this is the critical moment in the dialogue -- this is the hinge, this is the critical point --

Sokrates, having defeated Callicles on this crucial point, can then easily demonstrate that Virtue is the Good -- and that EVERYTHING A MAN DOES -- MUST SERVE VIRTUE.

Which is Order -- and Self-Control.

And, we can see that clearly when we leave Plato's account of Sokrates in the Gorgias, and return to Xenophon's memories of Sokrates at a symposion.

Here's Xenophon, and once again, the speaker is Sokrates:

For we all know that there is no converse worth the mention that does not comprise affection. Now affection on the part of those who feel admiration for character is commonly termed a pleasant and willing constraint; whereas many of those who have a merely physical concupiscence reprehend and detest the ways of those they love.

But suppose they are satisfied on both scores; yet the bloom of youth soon passes its prime, and as this disappears, affection also inevitably fades away as fast; but the soul becomes more and more lovable the longer it progresses toward wisdom.

Besides, in the enjoyment of physical beauty there is a point of surfeit, so that one cannot help feeling toward his favourite the same effect that he gets toward food by gratification of the appetite. But affection for the soul, being pure, is also less liable to satiety, though it does not follow, as one might suppose, that it is also less rich in the graces of Aphrodite; on the contrary, our prayer that the goddess will bestow her grace on our words and deeds is manifestly answered.

Now, no further argument is necessary to show that a soul verdant with the beauty of freeborn men and with a disposition that is reverent and noble, a soul that from the very first displays its leadership among its own fellows and is kindly withal, feels an admiration and an affection for the object of its love; but I will go on to prove the reasonableness of the position that such a lover will have his affection returned.

First, who could feel dislike for one by whom he knew himself to be regarded as the pattern of nobleness, and, in the next place, saw that he made his favourite's honour of more account than his own pleasure, and beside this felt assured that this affection would not be lessened under any circumstances, no matter whether he suffered some reverse or lost his comeliness through the ravages of illness?

Moreover, must not those who enjoy a mutual affection unavoidably take pleasure in looking into each other's faces, converse in amity, and trust and be trusted, and not only take thought each for the other but also take a common joy in prosperity and feel a common distress if some ill fortune befall, and live in happiness when their society is attended by sound health, but be much more constantly together if one or the other become ill, and be even more solicitous, each for the other, when absent than when present? Are not all these things marked by Aphrodite's grace? It is by conducting themselves thus that men continue mutually to love friendship and enjoy it clear down to old age.

. . .

I will now go on to show also that the union is servile when one's regard is for the body rather than when it is for the soul. For he who inculcates right speech and conduct would merit the honour given by Achilles to Cheiron and Phoenix; but the man who lusts only after the flesh would with good reason be treated like a mendicant; for he is always dogging the footsteps of his favourite, begging and beseeching the favour of one more kiss or some other caress.

Do not be surprised at my plain speaking; the wine helps to incite me, and the kind of Love [Eros] that ever dwells with me spurs me on to say what I think about its opposite.

For, to my way of thinking, the man whose attention is attracted only by his beloved's appearance is like one who has rented a farm; his aim is not to increase its value but to gain from it as much of a harvest as he can for himself. On the other hand, the man whose goal is friendship is more like one possessing a farm of his own; at any rate he utilizes all sources to enhance his loved one's worth.

Furthermore, the favourite who realizes that he who lavishes physical charms will be the lover's sovereign will in all likelihood be loose in his general conduct; but the one who feels that he cannot keep his lover faithful without nobility of character [kalokagathia] will more probably give heed to virtue [areté].

But the greatest blessing that befalls the man who yearns to render his favourite a good friend is the necessity of himself making virtue [areté] his habitual practice. For one cannot produce goodness [agathos] in his companion while his own conduct is evil, nor can he himself exhibit shamelessness and incontinence and at the same time render his beloved self-controlled and reverent.

. . .

So, in that little speech, Sokrates tells us that "the kind of Love" -- and it's Eros -- physical and romantic Love -- "that ever dwells with me spurs me on to say what I think about its opposite."

Which means that to Sokrates, True Eros is the product not of carnality but of spirituality.

That's difficult for us to understand, because in our culture there's a vast gap, a chasm, between the spiritual and physical / romantic Love.

Not for Sokrates.

He's intensely critical of a "vulgar" or low "Aphrodite" -- the Goddess of Love -- which results in mere carnality and looseness -- PROMISCUITY.

He attacks promiscuity and the desire for a quick lay -- over and over again.

He's relentless in his attack.

He points out that mere carnality doesn't lead anywhere -- that youthful beauty soon fades, and interest is lost:

in the enjoyment of physical beauty there is a point of surfeit, so that one cannot help feeling toward his favourite the same effect that he gets toward food by gratification of the appetite.

Whereas a true spiritual union goes on forever.

But affection for the soul, being pure, is also less liable to satiety, though it does not follow, as one might suppose, that it is also less rich in the graces of Aphrodite; on the contrary, our prayer that the Goddess will bestow her grace on our words and deeds is manifestly answered.

Even if there's illness, or ill fortune, says Sokrates, the Lovers continue to Love each other, and enjoy that Love "clear down to old age."

Not so if all that's there is physical lust.

And you can see that in Polyamorous in Portland, in which one of our guys gets bamboozled and royally fucked-over by an analist who claims to be "Drunk on him," but who's really just looking for "sex" -- actually, anal penetration.

Which Sokrates, as we saw in the Gorgias, DESPISES.

Along with promiscuity.

When Sokrates says carnality in the male-male context, he means anal and promiscuity.

So -- the lover who's possessed of "kalokagathia" -- nobility and goodness -- will render his beloved "self-controlled and reverent."

And Sokrates keeps talking about areté -- which is, in this context, Manly Excellence.

If you don't believe me when I say that's what it means -- read the definition -- and follow the links within the definition.

By winning at pankration, Autolycus has already demonstrated Manly Excellence -- he's shown "to the world physical strength and stamina, virile courage and sobriety."

And remember that sobriety is sophrosyne -- temperance, self-control, prudence.

Now, if Callias is to be a true Lover, he must help complete Autolycus' education in areté -- in Manly Excellence -- by exhibiting that same Manly Excellence in his own character and deportment.

Do you understand?

The Greek ideal is of a Manly Love.

I know that one partner is supposed to be younger than the other, though as you saw in those tomb paintings, the difference in age is not necessarily great -- it can be slight:

So -- Autolycus may only be sixteen -- probably not younger -- but he's already demonstrated "physical strength and stamina, Manly courage and self-control" -- in the most difficult Fight Sport the Greeks knew -- Pankration, which was the equivalent of our mixed martial arts.

And remember that he Fought Nude:

Every Man at the symposion has seen Autolycus, who's said to be "regal" in his Manly beauty, Nude -- and Fighting.

They've seen him demonstrate what I've called Heroic Nude Testicular Masculinity.

Like this:

And guys, that's probably what he looked like in action.

Except as you know, if you've ever watched an MMA Fight, that the action is fast and furious, a blur of muscle, sweat, and blood.

In repose, Autolycus may well have looked like this:

A Boy Victor in the Panathenaic Games

This is a Boy -- he's beardless.

He's a Fighter -- he has the broad chest and strong legs and buttocks of a Fighter.

He's a Victor -- he's wearing a crown of leaves.

And he's carrying a jar of olive oil -- which was a prize in the Panathenaic Games.

And of course he's nude and his testicles are prominent.

Heroic Nude Testicular Masculinity.

Which Sokrates describes as "Physical Strength and Stamina, Virile Courage"-- and "Sobriety."

So, remember, this isn't just a question of looks -- as Sokrates keeps hammering home -- to his "regal" bearing Autolycus joins "modesty and sobriety" -- sophrosyne.

Now:

The talk comes round to the idea of an "army of lovers" -- an idea put forward in a famous speech in Plato's Symposium:

if we could somehow contrive to have a city or an army composed of lovers and those they loved, they could not be better citizens of their country than by thus refraining from all that is base in a mutual rivalry for honor; and such men as these, when fighting side by side, one might almost consider able to make a little band victorious over all the world. For a man in love would surely choose to have all the rest of the host rather than the one he loves see him forsaking his station, or flinging away his arms; sooner than this, he would prefer to die many deaths: while, as for leaving the one he loves in the lurch, or not succoring him in peril, no man is such a craven that the influence of Love [Eros] cannot inspire him with a courage that makes him equal to the bravest born; and without doubt what Homer calls a "fury inspired" by a God [Ares] in certain heroes is the effect produced on lovers by Love's peculiar power. Moreover, only such as are in love will consent to die for others.

~ Plato, Symposium 179, translated by Boswell

But for Xenophon, this is a political issue.

Because that "army of lovers" has now become the Theban Sacred Band.

And Thebes is the enemy of Sparta.

And Xenophon, who adores Sparta and all things Spartan, detests the Thebans.

So -- in *Xenophon's* Symposium, "Sokrates" -- who sounds an awful lot like Xenophon himself in this instance -- attacks that idea:

My own view is that those who assign these posts in battle suggest thereby that they are suspicious that the objects of their love, if left by themselves, will not perform the duties of brave men.

In contrast to this, the Lacedaemonians, [the Spartans,] who hold that if a person so much as hints at a bodily desire he will never know true nobility and goodness of character, cause the objects of their love to be so consummately brave that even when arrayed with foreigners and even when not stationed in the same line with their lovers they just as surely feel ashamed to desert their comrades. For the goddess they worship is not Shamelessness but Modesty [aidos].

What Xenophon -- or Sokrates -- is here saying is that the Spartan agogé results in youths -- beloveds -- who are "so consummately brave" -- that you can station them anywhere -- next to their Lovers -- which it appears was usual -- or next to "foreigners" -- ew, yucky, from the Spartan point of view -- and they will still follow the Spartan creed of Never Retreat Never Surrender.

In other words, a Spartan youth of Fighting age doesn't need to be next to his Lover to Fight with a Fury inspired by a God -- such as Ares -- because the effect of what we might call Spartan Eros is to make them "ashamed to desert their comrades" -- whoever their comrades might be.

And that's because Spartan Eros was really intense.

As Lendon says:

[The Theban use of] such relationships between men as a font of military excellence is a transparent borrowing from Sparta, where such relationships were institutionalized, played a large role in the training of boys, and were thought to contribute to bravery in combat. At Sparta lover and beloved stood beside each other in the hoplite line; before battle the Spartans sacrificed to Eros, to love.

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

The Britannica: a system of male-male pair-bonding kept the normal hoplite bonds at a level of ferocious intensity.

Ferocious.

Intensity.

And dude, you will never get that from promiscuity or hooking-up.

It has to be done the way Sokrates says -- with that absolute Fidelity which is ultimately, a spiritual quality:

We could all come to one mind, I think, on the point I am trying to make, if we were to consider the question in this way: of two lads, the objects of the different types of love, which one would a person prefer to trust with his money, or his children, or to lay under the obligation of a favour? My own belief is that even the person whose love is founded on the loved one's physical beauty would in all these cases rather put his trust in him whose loveliness is of the spirit.

In your case, Callias, I deem it meet that you should thank Heaven [the Gods] for inspiring you with love [Eros] for Autolycus. For his ardour for glory [philotimos, Love of Honour] is manifest, inasmuch as he undergoes many toils [ponos -- hardship and toil] and many bodily discomforts to ensure his being proclaimed victor in the pankration.

Now if he were to believe that he is going not merely to shed lustre on himself and his father but also to acquire through his manly virtue [andragathia -- andros, Man, + agathos, Virtue = Andragathia, Manly Virtue] the ability to serve his friends and to exalt his country by setting up trophies of victory over its enemies, and for these reasons draw the admiring glances of all and be famous among both Greeks and barbarians, do you not suppose that he would esteem and honour highly any one whom he looked upon as the best partner in furthering these designs?

If, then, you would be in his good graces, you must try to find out what sort of knowledge it was that made Themistocles able to give Greece liberty; you must try to find out what kind of knowledge it was that gave Pericles the name of being his country's wisest counsellor; you must reflect, further, how it was that Solon by deep meditation established in his city laws of surpassing worth; you must search and find out what kind of practices it is that gives the Lacedaemonians [the Spartans] the reputation of being pre-eminent military commanders; for you are their proxenus [representative], and their foremost citizens are always being entertained at your house.

So -- Callias, the Lover of Autolycus, is the Spartan proxenus -- we might say consul -- in Athens -- that is, though an Athenian, he represents Spartan interests in Athens.

Which means that when a prominent Spartan comes to Athens, he at the very least visits Callias and most likely stays with him.

And Sokrates says, you should use your contacts, Callias, to learn more about what makes the Spartans so great in military matters and as commanders of Men -- and then pass that on to Autolycus, that he may put it to the use of his city -- Athens.

Because Autolycus, when possessed of Andragathia -- Manly Virtue, Manly Excellence -- can use it to his country's benefit.

So -- Autolycus is imbued with loveliness of spirit -- and Sokrates tells Callias that "you should thank the Gods for inspiring you with Eros for Autolycus."

Eros, then, is DIVINELY INSPIRED.

It's not a matter of carnality and lust.

It's DIVINE.

It comes from the Gods.

The Gods have caused Callias to Love Autolycus who, in his Struggle for Victory in the Pankration, has shown a Love of Honour which makes him willing to undergo hardship, toil, pain.

Pain is part of Fighting.

Pain is part of being a Man.

As Warrior NW said to me in an email:

Here's a good pic.

Very Male. Muscles. Fight. Sweat. Blood...and Pain. Pain and the Will to Fight.

Man Balls.

These are Manly qualities -- as we saw in the excerpt from Lucian in The Secret Craft of Warriorhood, boy-athletes, through their training in Fight Sports such as Pankration, learn to be "used to hard work, to stand up to blows face to face, and not to yield through fear of injury" . . .

Lucian continues:

They are not learning useless skills but they get the one thing which is the first and most important thing in life: through this training their bodies become stronger and capable of enduring pain.

Once again, these are Manly qualities, and all part of the Love of Honor and Manly Virtue -- and Sokrates tells Callias that if he wants to be the Lover of a Man with such qualities -- he must display Manly Virtue also, a Virtue of the sort which will help educate his beloved to his Manly Life's task.

So -- what does all this literally ancient history have to do with Prudence and the Pill?

A LOT!

Just compare and contrast.

The Pill -- like EVERY STRATAGEM FOR DEALING WITH HIV INFECTION WHICH IS NOT PRIMARY BEHAVIOR CHANGE -- is a great big emasculating and effeminizing COP-OUT.

Look again at the list of "beneficiaries" which was in the Times:

men who cannot use condoms because they sell sex, are in danger of prison rape, are under pressure from partners or lose their inhibitions when drunk or high.

Of course, we all know that the primary users of the pill will be affluent buttqueens and shitfairies, who can thus continue to evade their responsibility, moral and otherwise, for what has gone down in the "gay community" since 1975.

But, look at the list nevertheless:

"men who cannot use condoms because they sell sex"

Male prostitutes.

NO MAN SHOULD BE A PROSTITUTE.

And no Woman either.

"are in danger of prison rape"

Here, to be fair, the cop-out is on the part of the penal system.

"If you can't do the time, don't do the crime."

Fine.

But if you can't protect the prisoner -- let him go.

The US has the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world.

Man up US.

"are under pressure from partners"

That's called date rape.

It's a crime.

If you don't want to do anal and your partner "pressures" you -- it's rape.

You don't "treat rape" by forcing the party being raped to take a toxic pill.

YOU EMPOWER THE GUY TO SAY NO.

You encourage the guy to leave the abuser.

And you urge him to press charges.

"lose their inhibitions when drunk or high"

Again, a huge cop-out.

Substance abuse needs to be treated.

And the abuser needs to take responsibility for his life.

So -- we live in a society which has had twenty-nine years to face the reality of "MSM" HIV infection:

Well-educated, often affluent males knowingly infecting other males.

Through anal penetration.

A degenerate, degrading, debilitating and effeminizing act.

And we continue to enable it.

The pope -- just use condoms!

Our National Institutes of "Health," aided and abetted by the (Bill and Melinda) Gates Foundation -- just take a pill!

And then you can fuck away.

Forever.

You can be a whore, or just as promiscuous as a whore, you can be abused, you can be raped, you can get high and be a whore and whore around and be abused and raped.

But it's okay because there's a pill.

NO.

It's not okay.

The Greeks had a system of male-male Love -- EROS -- which was Divinely Inspired and served by its own distinctive institutions.

The Symposia and Palastrai, in Sparta the Phiditia and Agogé, the nude male religious-athletic festivals -- and the military.

There were no pills.

Just words.

And one of them was Sophrosyne -- Self-Control, Temperance, Prudence.

Men were told to seek out VIRTUE in other Men -- and to Love that Manly Virtue.

That's what they were told.

And there were no epidemics.

Just a lot of brilliance -- intellectual, physical, moral.

Spiritual.

I was going to title this post "Prudence and the Pill" -- thus making a pun on a 1968 movie of that name.

But really, and of course, the question is: Prudence or the Pill.

Or the condom.

Or whatever technological fix you think you need for what is nevertheless a MORAL problem.

We don't need a pill, and we've never needed a pill to reduce HIV transmission to zero.

No pill needed.

All the pill will do is continue the confinement of "gay"-identified males in their heterosexualized ghetto.

They don't need a ghetto, they don't need sexual orientation, they don't need "gay" marriage or "gays" in the military.

They need only to be Men.

And that's all you need too.

To be a Man.

Bill Weintraub

December 12, 2010

© All material Copyright 2010 by Bill Weintraub. All rights reserved.