I’ve never personally been exposed to gay culture. But this story told in a recent email by Antonio Cortez echoes the descriptions I’ve heard from my father:
When I was in college, I had a friend, his name was Marcus. He was in the dance program, and he was flamboyantly, hysterically GAY.
Gay with a capital G.
He was a 6’3 black guy with an athlete’s build, probably would have been a phenomenal football/basketball/baseball player, but he was a dancer.
A gay black dancer that fulfilled every stereotype you could think of that comes with a designation.
Marcus and I always got along, as I was essentially the only heterosexual male in the entire department, and being highly masculine myself, I was a definite counterbalance to pretty much everyone I was around.
And when I say got along, I mean he drove me fucking insane most of the time and he always semi joking claiming he was going to rape me.
Its hysterical to think about now, as I realize most people have never been truly exposed to Gay male cutlure, but gay men are the most sexually aggressive, promiscuous, and probably disgusting by most “proper” standards you can imagine. There is a reason the gay men carry the most STDs and use ridiculous amounts of drugs, they are constantly screwing each other and swapping partners.
Two thoughts occurred to me after I read that story:
First, it makes sense to me why God prohibited male-on-male sex in Leviticus and Paul referred to the act as “abandoning the natural use of the woman” and how they “received in themselves the due penalty of their error.” The sin, at it its root, is an improper channeling of aggressive masculine sexual energy. God intended for this energy to be directed towards a woman.
My second thought was that a man can do well with women by positioning himself in an arena where there is an overrepresentation of females and almost no masculine heterosexual men.
Anthony is an interesting alpha male. He’s a high testosterone red pilled ballet dancer who’s fanatical about fitness. Hard to beat that unique positioning. (I recommend following his daily email tips. He’s got some good stuff.)
One of the amusements I like to provide on my blog is showing how things you thought had nothing to do with sex actually have much more to do with it than you thought.
Case in point: Latin law.
There’s an old Latin legal saying:
Exceptio confirmat regulam (the exception confirms the rule.)
I’d never given the principle much thought until I read this interesting article on Mental Floss. The saying is more insightful than I initially gave it credit for:
The principle provides legal cover for inferences such as the following: if I see a sign reading “no swimming allowed after 10 pm,” I can assume swimming is allowed before that time; if an appliance store says “pre-paid delivery required for refrigerators,” I can assume they do not require pre-paid delivery for other items. The exception here is not a thing but an act of excepting. The act of stipulating a condition for when something is disallowed (or required), proves that when the stipulated conditions do not hold, it is allowed (or not required). The general rules are that swimming is allowed before 10pm and that pre-paid delivery is not required. The fact that exceptions to those rules have been stated confirms those rules hold in all other cases.
Exceptio confirmat regulam is a foundational principle for understanding biblical laws, including those about sexuality. The biblical “restrictions” suddenly becomes more interesting. For instance:
- If God said not to lust after our neighbor’s wife, then it’s allowable for men to desire unmarried women.
- If Paul said it was allowable to refrain from sex on occasion in order to pray, then constant sexual activity was expected as the norm.
- If a woman could have her hand cut off should she decide to “taketh a man by the secrets” in a fight, then the male genitalia was normally regarded as a sacred object.
As I’ve illustrated in my post on sexuality in Leviticus, God is not a prude. The exception confirms the rule.
For those who have eyes to see…
Yesterday, I claimed that the “sealed fountain” in Song of Solomon 4:12 is a reference to female ejaculation.
earl responded by pointing out that Proverbs 5 has similar language in reference to marriage vs. adultery. (The popular interpretation of Song 4:12 is that it’s a reference to female chastity.) This reminded me of something interesting I came across a while back…
Proverbs 5:16-17 has long been a difficult passage for translators. It’s typically rendered as something like:
Drink water from your own cistern,
And running water from your own well.
Should your fountains be dispersed abroad,
Streams of water in the streets?
Let them be only your own,
And not for strangers with you.
Let your fountain be blessed,
And rejoice with the wife of your youth.
But the Hebrew does not literally say that. (You can see for yourself here.)
It was changed into a rhetorical question by the translators because they couldn’t make sense of it as a straight statement. They assumed that a man’s “fountain” should NOT be dispersed.
But the Stone Edition of the Tanach, edited by Rabbi Nosson Scherman, renders the passage as follows:
Drink water from your own cistern and flowing water from your own well. [Then] your springs will spread outwards, streams of water in the thorough-fares. They will be yours alone, strangers not sharing them with you. Your source will be blessed, and you will rejoice with the wife of your youth.
While the conclusion remains the same (don’t sleep with an adulteress), the meaning behind the conclusion drastically changes.
Solomon is not simply saying adultery is bad. He’s saying it’s shameful for strangers to share your seed (e.g. your “springs”, your “source”). It is better to channel your springs into your own wife, so that you keep what is yours.
A man who is “fruitful” will visibly spread his seed (offspring) throughout the kingdom. But to produce bastard children would be a shame to your seed.
Your seed and your identity are bound together. You are only bringing shame to yourself by planting it in foreign fields.
Same conclusion. Different meaning.
Your lips, O my spouse,
Drip as the honeycomb;
Honey and milk are under your tongue;
-Song of Solomon 4:11
Hmm… what does this remind you of?
As I’ve said before, God is not a prude.