I find it interesting that some people do not want
to return to the "subject" of "homosexuality." It is
not as if there were no homosexual people in the
Renaissance, yet the tepid reluctance to discuss here
is rather startling.
Still, as others have correctly stated, the terms
"homosexual" and "heterosexual" are modern constructs
not applicable to the Renaissance. Likewise, the term
"sodomite" refers to other sexual activities outside
of penetrative male-male sex (but we should all know
this by now, I hope).
Reading Alan Bray's article of male friendship
other forms of intimacy among men, it is striking that
intimate male friendship, although certainly
well-known did not receive the same condemnation as
did sodomy, which is also never clearly defined. He
only mentioned the term "buggery" in passing, which is
more sex-specific.
Nevertheless, even intimate masculine friendship,
whether or not they were sexual, did come under
suspicion. It seems, therefore, that any intimacy
among men in the Renaissance walked a very fine line
between a deep and loving friendship and unnatural
acts. Unfortunately (and I am not contradicting my
argument I stated earlier in this e-mail posting), we
are too quick to taint any intimate male friendship as
homosexual or homoerotic, given our postmodern
propensity to "out" everyone having intimate same-sex
friendships.
--- shirley sharon-zisser <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> our object of study, Professor Godshalk, is not
> "past experience" but the
> human soul, which Arcadian texts explore. Unlike
> you, I do not find this
> amusing. I find this subjects us to an ethical and
> intellectual imperative.
> This imperative is one of the most serious
> components of my life, just as
> is sex.
>
> In view of this ethical imperative, I would be more
> wary about declaring to
> the world I find its consequences amusing, and the
> subject of
> homosexuality, which is one of the consequences of
> this imperative,
> something about which one ought to be apologetic.
>
> To those who complain about discussions of the
> subject on this list, I
> could only say that the exploration of the human
> sould *does* inevitably
> involve pain and suffering. Aracdians well knew pain
> is an inseparable
> constituent of jouissance. But the ethical
> imperative to always say
> (not)-all the truth about the human soul obliges us
> to reflect upon
> jouissance, even if some of us remain too afraid to
> touch it and develop a
> substitute preference for amusements.
>
> best,
>
> Dr. Shirley Sharon-Zisser
>
>
> At 14:55 21/01/01 -0500, you wrote:
> >I apologize for bringing up the subject of
> homosexuality. Believe it or
> >not, I had forgotten about the earlier discussions
> of this topic --
> >discussions which I found amusing, though others
> did not.
> >
> >Of course, the blind bow boy is Cupid.
> >
> >And, of course, we can never experience the
> sexualities of the past. We can
> >only attempt to reconstruct them using what he know
> of the present.
> >Nevertheless, categorization is important in our
> attempts to understand the
> >past and the world around us.
> >
> >Yours, Bill Godshalk
> >**********************************************
> >* W. L. Godshalk
> *
> >* Professor, Department of English
> *
> >* University of Cincinnati
> *
> >* Cincinnati OH 45221-0069 *
> Stellar Disorder
> >* [log in to unmask]
> *
> >*
> > *
> >**********************************************
> >
> >
=====
Consuelo M. Concepcion
P.O. Box 973
Annandale, Virginia 22003-9973
[log in to unmask]
(703)965-0119
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices.
http://auctions.yahoo.com/
|