Also by Warrior Ted:

• Questions about Homosexuality and Christianity

• True Man2Man Intimacy

Plus, Ted has a listing in Alliance Youth.

Bill Weintraub

Re: Reply to the Preface of Two Spearmen

9-12-09

Thank you Ted.

I took some time to start reading your latest post regarding the Two Spearmen. I've only had time to read the Preface, but even that was full of a tremendous amount of detail. Some things that I thought were very important, well thought out, and applicable included your emphasis of morality with regards to sexuality, all of the "-isms", the HIV/AIDS study you spoke of, your discussion regarding the removal of morality from many aspects of life, and your points about christian fundamentalists/conservatives and their hijaking of morality for their own ends.

Yes, that's what they've done.

They've filled a void.

I'll try to keep this brief and concise.

1) I have long wondered, once I finally admitted that I was a man who was sexually attracted to men, what was going on in the "world of sex", so to speak. I was pretty naive, being 15, but I could see all the damage being done by HIV/AIDS, along with other diseases. I was doing internet lurking, and constantly reading about new deaths among gay men from HIV/AIDS. I wondereded why there was such a prevalence of the disease. My mind was pretty innocent, and I only vaguely "knew" that "gays had anal sex". Beyond that, there was a certain cognitive and/or physical disconnect as to what that actually meant. I soon was to find out, when I googled "gay porn". I was absolutely horrified and disgusted at the images I beheld.

And Ted, that speaks well of you.

I was so disgusted that I retreated for a while into intense homophobia, denying my desires, and trying to be a "better christian". There wasn't any love, respect, equality, or beauty in anal sex. There was only looks of pain, feces, and horrible, selfish behavior by the "top". I was so shocked, like I said, I turned on myself, and ran from what I percieved I would "become", if I acted on my feelings.

That's understandable.

During my 15-ish to 18 years, I repressed my sexuality, vainly and uselessly tried to be attracted to females, and dove into conservative, evangelical, fundamentalist christianity. For several years I even was a part-time missionary. But I couldn't stop being attracted to men.

Right.

That's because you're a Man.

And being attracted to Men is a natural part of being a Man.

So, eventually, I gave up, and resigned myself both to HIV/AIDS, and to hell.

Not a very happy set of choices.

It was a sort of last straw effort, when, during my lurking, I learned of "gays not doing anal sex". It was on some now forgotten chatroom, and was certainly said disparigingly, but my heart soared. Soon, I discovered your site, and have been here since.

Good!

It seems to me, that the more sexual "freedoms" people want, whether they really are sexual in nature, or should be allowed is another story, the more people think that morality is "holding them back". In some ways, I think that this is probably a result of the christian right, in their efforts to lay claim to morality in its entirety, and claim exlusive interpretation and application rights which everybody has to follow. Obviously, this is a very arrogant view, but it's one that they follow passionately, and one which I, unfortunately, used to endorse. The end result is that morality becomes sort of clouded and obscure, weighed down by all sorts of "God says do this..." and "God says do that..."; all are totally arbitrary and self-serving (for those espousing them to maintain control upon their "flock"). That being said, there is an actual embodiment of morality that is beautifully summed up in the golden rule. In my view, Christianity started out on the right view with this simple and straightforward view espoused by Jesus but became a bureaucracy soon enough. Within evolutionary theory, morality also has a sort of reason, namely being survival and propagation of the species. However, to me, this is a very narrow view, because we are beings capable of much more than merely living like an unintelligent animal.

Right.

So, when morality tends to be broached in a sexual topic, it's almost as if it's taboo. It shouldn't be, because morality, in its simple and pure form, is always applicable, always useful, and always needed.

Yes, that's correct, and very well-said.

I think that the distinction needs to be made and maintained between "christian" or "religious" morality and the actual, pragmatic embodiment of morality.

Yes.

Ted, if you read part Part I of Two Spearmen, which I've now posted in the same message thread, you'll see that Plato/Socrates, towards the end of the Symposium, says that heterosexual Love leads, ideally, to the begetting of children;

while male-male Eros leads to the begetting of Virtue -- that is, Areté.

That's a really important idea and conception of Love between Men -- which remember was the norm in their society.

And that conception was, in your phrase, "the actual, pragmatic embodiment of morality" -- in ancient Greece -- in terms of Love between Men.

And in Part II, which I'm calling Lakonikan Loves, I'll show how that played out in Sparta.

A bit of Part II has already been posted -- and you'll be interested in seeing it.

2) Regarding all the "-isms". I used to be hung up on those, as you know, and it took quite a while for it to get through to me, that I don't need to have a sexual-preference identity any more than I need a hair-color identity.

Right.

And guys, Ted discussed his realization that he didn't need the categories of "sexual orientation" in his reply to Questions about Homosexuality and Christianity.

Here's part of what he said there:

Thank you for clarifying about 'sexual orientation', I am finally understanding what you've been saying all along. I finally get that there's no 'straight', 'bi', 'gay' or 'in-between'...there's just men. Directly related to that, I realize that I'm a man, not a 'straight', 'bi', 'gay' or 'in-between' man, (which would then make me an alien compared to other men) but that I'm just a normal, average guy.

It's hard to describe 1) the relief and 2) sense that it is right that this brings about. Honestly, I thought that I was 'different' (pick a category), because I am attracted to men, it's an overwhelming feeling when I suddenly realized, that I'm not different, I don't have a 'different' or 'minority' 'sexual orienation', I'm just a guy.

Thank you very much for helping me to (finally) see this.

And of course Ted is right -- he's just a guy.

A Man.

He doesn't need any other identifier.

And that realization gave him both great relief and a tremendous sense that "it is right."

Let's get back to Ted's Reply to the Preface of Two Spearmen:

Imagine if people started "coming out" that they had brown hair, or green eyes, or a certain ethnicity. It would seem odd, because those things are natural, normal, unchangeable, and obvious. Whom you are sexually attracted to and want to spend your life with is also a natural and unchangeably obvious thing. To have to "come out" about it, is almost suggesting that it isn't natural, and so should be noticed. This, of course, couldn't be farther from the truth.

Right.

3) That HIV/AIDS study you mentioned showed exactly how, when gays are told that they are less than a man, and so need their own community and subculture, and encourages them to depart from morality because they aren't worth it,

Yes, and it also teaches them that morality is actually bad for them -- that morality in sexual matters is always a negative.

how rapidly things can go from really bad to really worse.

Yes!

It's almost as if they are wanting to die, and I wonder if it's because they are told that they are less than a full man. I haven't been a part of the gay community (thankfully), so I can't claim to really know why a lot of gay men act in such a destructive manner.

Okay.

In my view, they act that way because they've been told to act that way.

So: there's a dominant culture (or paradigm) which dictates anal penetration.

It says, If it's not anal, it's not really gay.

And which encourages promiscuity.

And which again, disparages any sort of moral thinking in sexual matters.

And that is a cultural problem.

Now, Ted, were you to "come out" into the "gay community," you'd be told the problem is

substance abuse

or

homophobia

or

depression

or

stigma.

That's not so.

The problem is the culturally-dictated sexual act.

And the removal of any sense of morality from sex.

Which is necessary if you're going to maintain that act -- ie, anal.

Because anal is, ipso facto, brutish and vicious -- and therefore immoral.

Here's the thing Ted:

You need a high ideal in sexual matters, particularly between men, but between men and women too.

What the analists have done is to reject any ideal or morality.

In other words, they're starting from zero.

And, not surprisingly, they soon find themselves immersed in a multitude of negatives.

Living in those negatives.

And sometimes dying because of them.

What the Greeks did was to start from a very high place.

Let's say, on a scale of zero to one hundred -- that they started at one hundred.

And most of the time -- they stayed there.

Because they understood that, as Jaeger says, male-male Eros must be the love for areté.

Male Eros must express a love for Virtue.

A yearning for moral beauty.

That's what it has to be about.

Sorry that this is a long letter, but I really enjoyed your Preface.

Ted, that's great, and thank you.

I can't wait to read the actual post, once I have some free time.

Yes -- please go ahead when you have time and read Part I.

It's going to take me a while to get to Part II, but I'll let folks know when it's posted.

Thanks for raising so many important points, and getting me thinking.

You're welcome -- I'm glad you're thinking!

I was starting to get a bit apathetic,

Yeah -- I know that's a problem.

It's difficult to maintain momentum with us just sitting on the net.

But don't get apathetic.

Hang in there with us.

Very important, for everyone's sake.

and you gave me a swift kick in the pants.

Good -- not in the sense of a kick, but if I was able to keep you motivated, that's great!

Thanks again, Bill!

Ted, again you're very welcome.

So guys, the core point here is that Eros -- male-male Love -- must be the Love for Areté -- for Virtue.

Male-Male Love must be about the creating -- and heightening -- of Virtuous and Valorous behavior.

And that to the ancients, the idea and ideal of Virtuous Virility -- and Moral Masculinity -- was natural.

It isn't to us -- and that's the problem.

Yet, in the Symposium, what we call Manly Love is seen as the first step on a spiritual path which leads ultimately to an understanding of Beauty -- which to the Greeks means Nobility as well -- in its purest sense; to "the breeding of true examples of virtue"; and from there to what Plato calls "the friendship of God":

[W]hat if man had eyes to see the true beauty, the divine beauty, I mean, pure and clear, not clogged with the pollutions of mortality, and all the colors and pollutions of mortal life? What if he could behold the divine beauty itself, in its unique form? ... Do but consider, that there only will it befall him, as he sees the beautiful only through that which makes it visible, to breed not illusions but true examples of virtue, since his contact is not with illusion but with truth. So when he has begotten a true virtue and has reared it up he is destined to win the friendship of God...

~translated by Lamb and Jowett

And for those of you not familiar with Plato's concept of "true beauty," you might to take a look at Chuck Tarver's Plato's Cave on this site -- which explains it very well.

So -- in our culture, sexuality and spirituality are kept rigidly separate by religious forces.

Among the Greeks, both religion and philosophy presented sexuality and spirituality as intertwined.

Thus these images, which I talked about at length in a previous post:

Zeus

Zeus

Zeus and Ganymedes

Zeus and his wife Hera on Olympos
Ganymedes stands between them

In the last of these, we see Zeus, the King of the Gods, who's often referred to simply as "God," with his wife Hera and male lover Ganymedes.

Zeus loved and had sex with both.

And in case you're thinking his sex with Hera was perfunctory, while his true passion was reserved for Ganymedes -- not so, as the great Greek poet Pindar tells us:

Hera, who belonged to Zeus for joyous acts of love.

~ Pythian 2, translated by Race

Zeus and Hera, as a consequence of those joyous acts of love, had children, who became Gods themselves.

While Ganymedes was Zeus' beloved.

With whom he also experienced joyous acts of love.

And to the Greeks, this is the way society is supposed to work.

A Man is supposed to have both a wife and, if he so chooses, a concurrent male lover.

He loves, and has sex, with both of them.

That's not considered immoral or unfaithful.

It's seen as correct.

So the Gods here model correct human behavior:

And make no mistake:

To us, Greek Gods are characters in pretty stories -- "myths."

But to the ordinary Greek (and Roman), the Gods were real -- eternal and immortal *spiritual* beings who were the objects of great religious devotion.

Perhaps not to philosophers like Socrates and Plato -- who were more apt to see the many Gods as manifestations or symbols of a divine Unity.

But to the ordinary Greek -- the individual Gods were real -- and to be venerated.

Thus Gibbon's famous dictum:

The various modes of worship, which prevailed in the Roman world, were all considered by the people as equally true; by the philosopher, as equally false; and by the magistrate, as equally useful.

And thus toleration produced not only mutual indulgence, but even religious concord.

~ Decline and Fall, II

So and again, to the ordinary Greek -- the individual Gods were real --

And their lives served as models for human lives:

Ted says,

When morality tends to be broached in a sexual topic, it's almost as if it's taboo. It shouldn't be, because morality, in its simple and pure form, is always applicable, always useful, and always needed.

The Greeks would have agreed.

And we need to agree also.

I thank Ted again for his post.

Ted's a true Warrior:

A Man who's decided to live with integrity in the spirit of his own brave truth.

Bill Weintraub

September 12, 2005

© All material Copyright 2009 by Bill Weintraub. All rights reserved.