Speaking of book-learning vs. experience, via Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon, who quotes Dan Savage, who quotes David Klinghoffer who in turn cites the ancient Roman Catullus on exactly how homosexuality is supposed to ruin heterosexual marriage.
The social history behind this piece is clear: once they’ve experienced sex with other men, Catullus tells us, men are unsatisfied with what their new wives provide them. Notice that the poet is unconcerned about the husband’s dallying with other womenâ€â€it’s the other men around that threaten the marital union.
Is Klinghoffer mental? Yes, sex with one’s wife really would be unsatisfactory after homosexual sex if you’re homosexual! Otherwise? Not so much.
Seriously! The other year Jon Stewart asked Mike Huckabee when he decided he was heterosexual. Huckabee waived it off and, very unfortunately I think, Stewart didn’t pursue it further. Which is really, really unfortunate.
One of the problems with assuming heterosexuality is a baseline, an absolute, an anchor point against which all other is measured (and found wanting) is that it’s never itself examined. And so for Huckabee (and perhaps, come to think of it, for Stewart since he didn’t press the question) actually inquiring into whether heterosexuality might be a choice doesn’t make any sense at all.
Which is a shame because, duh, heterosexuality is no more a choice than homosexuality is. And so it would never occur to Catullus, or Huckabee or, evidently, Klinghoffer to reflect on the equal reality that if you’re already straight it’s equally true that “once they’ve experienced sex with women, figleaf tells us, men are just as unsatisfied with what other men provide them.”
That’s why it’s such a good idea to let people get married to the gender they actually want to get married to! If you think about it. Which evidently some people never get around to doing.
Sheesh!
If you think about it. Which evidently some people never get around to doing.
Yeah, but – thinking is HARD! Can’t someone else do it?
Yes, well, at that time and place, hot man-on-teenage-boy sex was considered by at least some of the philosophers and elites to be the default orientation. And if I remember right, there was some famous complaint about how things would be ideal if they could only dispense with women and just buy another man’s seed to produce children. And marriages were usually arranged rather than out of love. So… given all that, the concern did make some sense, even if it were erroneous.
I have no idea why a modern person would think that, though. Unless they spent way too much time studying ancient Mediterranean culture and not enough time having a life.
Post new comment