sofiechan home

The Gay Question (Asylum Mag): homosociality vs sodomy

anon_dony said in #3698 25h ago: received

https://web.archive.org/web/20240116022903/https://asylummagazine.ca/THE-GAY-QUESTION

An explosive thesis: the centrality of male homoeroticism to premodern production of manliness and great men. We're all familiar by now with a few key ideas:

1. The greeks, english, and aryan koryos boys in general were frequently homoerotic but not in the modern anonymous bathhouse chemsex sodomy-as-self-identity style. In particular, the institution where a man adopts a somewhat younger boy (of late teens) as muse, student, best friend, and occasionally lover was common and valued, and not like the modern pattern of homosexual pedophilic abuse.

2. Modern man is stuck in a gynocentric social prison with very little socialization as men among men, and this is a probable cause of many of our social and political pathologies. The mannerbund is the key lost institution, and for its lack we have little direct insight into the psychology of real masculinity.

3. The lack of any enforceable taboo against the horror of modern sodomy is a significant part of why male sociality has collapsed. See for example gay abuse fears in boy scouts, the neurotic half-taboo against close male bonds and physical affection for fear of it being a slippery slope into the Foucauldian bathhouse, the profanation of male physical ideals ("bodybuilding is gay, bro"), association of "the sausage fest" with sexual and social weakness, etc.

The author of this article builds on this foundation, his experience of all-boys school, and history and psychology of various male-male erotic practices to paint a very interesting picture: the mannerbund and homoeroticism are inseparable and the modern identification of homoerotic affection with sodomy is a lie and both consequence and cause of the destruction of male sociality.

He makes the wider case that the deliberate destruction of male spaces before and after the war is central to the decline of the west, and the constant distraction of easy females and chaperoning of boys by women makes it impossible now for great men to arise.

I didn't appreciate his dooming about islam overtaking europe and other such nonsense, but the essay is very interesting overall. At the least it's a great reminder of the importance and power of all-male space. There's a lot of good stuff in there (I haven't discussed his claim about different types of male sexual psychology for example) but the most interesting may be the implied challenge that we have to re-interpret homoeroticism to achieve the return of male sociality. That's a huge claim that I'd love to discuss more with you guys.

In my own mannerbund-adjacent experiences, I have seen nothing of the erotic element, but the undercurrent of great affection for each other held back by gay suspicion is definitely real. The mannerbund is clearly an institution of extreme importance that we must bring back, but what do you make of this claim that that's going to mean easing the taboo on male physical affection and sharpening the taboo against sodomy? Is this faggy nonsense or a major truth nuke?

referenced by: >>3702 >>3716

An explosive thesis: received

anon_sevu said in #3699 24h ago: received

Yeah it’s an interesting claim. Let’s approach it purely empirically:

> In my own mannerbund-adjacent experiences, I have seen nothing of the erotic element

I have seen it. My fraternity in college had a few gay guys. They didn’t ruin the scene but they didn’t particularly contribute to it, either. Had everyone been straight, it would’ve been fine.

The mannerbund or fraternity is a critical institution but it doesn’t rely on or benefit from any kind of homoeroticism. It does of course require basic straight male physicality, high fives, partying together, sports, hijicks around campus, weekend trips to the woods and so on. Hopefully it goes without saying that you cannot do a mannerbund over zoom.

> what do you make of this claim that that's going to mean easing the taboo on male physical affection and sharpening the taboo against sodomy?

I haven’t seen any evidence that this is helpful or good.

The culture where “physical affection” between straight men is most normalized today is the Muslim world, where men greet each other with a kiss on the cheek and it’s common for friends to walk down the street holding hands. There are some kino pics of Taliban fighters walking and talking hand in hand, AKs on each shoulder.

But guess what, that culture also has a lot of outright gay sex as well, up to and including the disgusting bacha bazi “dancing boys” pedo culture in tribal AfPak. The Turks are famous for their own bathhouse culture that predates Foucault by several centuries.

And in general, I consider Islam to be a degenerate culture that has empirically produced little progress and from which we should mostly take negative lessons (what not to do). Muslim sexual practices between men, boys, boy-slaves, hijabis and the occasional donkey are not exactly aspirational.

TLDR; we need to destigmatize and grow all-male physical spaces. We need more close male friendships. However, do not need “non-gay homoeroticism”; it’s unclear that such a thing even exists and in any case it’s not useful.

referenced by: >>3709 >>3710

Yeah it’s an interes received

anon_wule said in #3702 23h ago: received

>>3698
Here's the canonical reply to this mode of inquiry:
https://blog.reaction.la/culture/gay-needs-to-be-suppressed/

And two more from bygone legends:
https://archive.ph/meYie
https://archive.ph/zv83E
(full Social Matter archive here for people who haven't heard of this very high signal resource: https://socialmatterarchive.wordpress.com/)

It may be that you have to ease the former taboo and sharpen the latter to get 100% of Hellenic male culture back, but you're gonna have a lot of difficulty doing anything at all if you don't sharpen the latter first. In particular, you run into the very real gay mafia problem if your gaydar isn't operating at 100% (as Mr. Perilloux so eloquently explains). In the modern American legal system unfortunately once they're in they're very difficult to get out.

As things stand we are so far away from being historically reasonable on the latter taboo that resolving things there must be emphasized over the question of whether Hitchens et al is faggy nonsense. There are plenty of great examples of proper männerbund-like coordination even today (e.g. military spec ops teams) where there is just no erotic element. You'll face pretty severe cultural resistance if you try to ease the former taboo too soon, simply because we are in no real condition to do so yet.

For what it's worth, in my männerbund experiences the erotic element has also not shown up at all. Gentlemen shake hands, faggots fuck each others thighs. And the "I wouldn't refuse him anything" from the OP essay is also just straighforwardly faggy.

referenced by: >>3724

Here's the canonical received

anon_dony said in #3709 19h ago: received

>>3699
Good points on the muslim world being both the most homosocial and the most degenerate. But the Taliban and Houthis are also some of the more impressive bands of men around these days, with a great will to sovereignty. Can we be so sure that bacha bazi is the inevitable result of war-bros holding hands? I don't buy it. There is a large confounding factor: that those peoples are degenerate and have a degenerate religion.

>My fraternity in college had a few gay guys. They didn’t ruin the scene but they didn’t particularly contribute to it, either. Had everyone been straight, it would’ve been fine.
The point isn't that the gays make it better (they probably detract). The point of the essay is that "gay" is a fake concept. Anyways a college fraternity probably isn't enough to really get into the koryos dynamics. It's not like being isolated in a distant boarding school with no girls, or being out on campaign. Too many girls easily at hand.

>>3705
>>3701
I don't know where you get the idea that the author is BAP. The author mentions growing up in a Christian sect, and BAP was raised as an atheist communist. BAP also didn't go to school much because he was tutored. In any case he doesn't sound like BAP. No doubt BAP is ghey and this guy is similar, but I don't think they are same guy. And I agree with >>3703 that dox speculations are bad form.

Good points on the m received

anon_hwdu said in #3710 19h ago: received

>>3699
Very much agree with this perspective. However insightful the essay is, I think the author is ghey. While not overly important I do think it clouds his judgement in terms of the importance of the erotic dimension of male bonding.

The most illuminating point in the essay for me was about the difference between full men and gyno men. It is true, unfortunately, far too many men wish to only appeal to women and are unreliable. I have found myself and observed in my own life men throwing men under the bus for a crumb of pussay. True male bonding is frowned upon because of the proliferation of gay sex associations with male closeness--which we can directly blame on the absence of homosexual repression. Men turn to women for all their validations, intimacy, and closeness. As the author highlights, men only use other men to the extent that it can get them further pussy. A sad state of affairs really.

Very much agree with received

anon_viwe said in #3711 19h ago: received

So I don't know how many of you have been in mannerbund-esque institutions like firefighting, the police, or the military but I've consistently observed that homoeroticism is widespread as a source of comic relief, explanatory models for hierarchy and dominance, and genuine friendship that is self-conscious of itself.

Some examples of the above: I've seen men over the age of 30 refer to critcism from their supervisor as "pee-pee slaps." Two brothers on the crew referred to as the "blowjob brothers," with the implication of such a sobrequet left to the imagination of the reader. Guys on the crew saying "I love you" as a casual goodbye. Constant allusions to jerking each other off. The youngest guy on the crew was often referred to as a catamite, in colorful language that I will not reproduce here.

I never liked to partake in this kind of talk, but it was out of temperament rather than principle. I'm not sure if it's always been this way or if it's the product of masculinity under siege, in the sense that gynocracy and homosexualism is so rampant in society that many men--even chud types--are under a certain shock or subtle discomfort when in a heavily masculine setting, so alien is it to the way we moderns were raised. In such strange settings, it becomes standard to signal your heterosexuality by "agreeing and amplifying" homoerotic behaviors. If a man on the crew was known to be gay he would never be joked with in such a fashion.

referenced by: >>3712 >>3713

So I don't know how received

anon_lefa said in #3712 18h ago: received

>>3711

Depends on ethnicity

You're approaching their behavior from too analytic of a perspective

Why do some kids like to make poop jokes at a young age?

Inborn temperament. Same behavior here.

Depends on ethnicity received

anon_lefa said in #3713 18h ago: received

>>3711

Case in note: People in this thread are calling each other 'gheys' looking for 'pussay' and 'faggy nonsense'

It's not my style either but I see the reasons for why it exists

Case in note: People received

anon_pusu said in #3716 17h ago: received

>>3698
Pretty sure homoerotic behavior (whether involving actual sex or not) does not contribute to, but poisons and degrades, male groups and friendships.

I think most of us value mannerbund / male friendship and think we need more of it and better. That's not the dispute. The dispute is strictly the homoerotic aspect.

Personal data point: I went to an all-boys school. My friend group got pretty close. We would hang out all night on weekends, go camping, etc. It was not rare for a guy to put his arm around another guy's shoulders, like a football coach. In all that time, I neither witnessed nor even heard of a single sex act among the guys. Not one blow job, mutual jerk off, nothing. Quite the contrary, all the sexual banter, of which there was a lot, was hetero in nature (did you see that girl's tits, etc.)

So, given my experience, I know this is at least possible. Now, in a culture with a lot of gay stuff, are you going to get gay stuff seeping through in many places? Of course. That's to be expected. But that doesn't prove anything. It's just a fact about our culture, not about the dynamics of male friendship.

referenced by: >>3718 >>3724

Pretty sure homoerot received

anon_viwe said in #3718 17h ago: received

>>3716

The homoerotic element of masculine spaces today is definitely a degradation of some kind but its geneology seems like a puzzle. Even if it wasn't the case for your friend group or my friend group, I think anyone who's seen a decent amount of life has encountered this kind of setting before.

The Evola quote in another thread today reminded me how he speaks somewhere of the way the life and motivations of soldiery today do not measure up to ethos of warriors past, which is to say their relationship to their profession is more befitting slaves than freemen. I think this might be a useful way to think about it--the professional mannerbunds one can be initiated into today exist in a state of male to male transexuality because they exist in a gynocratic substrate.

The homoerotic eleme received

anon_dony said in #3724 7h ago: received

>>3716
This is certainly my default assumption, coming from the tradition the other anon >>3702 linked. Mannerbund would seem to work best without sexual motivations being involved at all. But the OP essay made an interested case for the idea that the deep friendship love among men, which is obviously good, may involve more physical and even pseudo-sexual affection than that. I have not seen it, but he claims we wouldn’t see it except in certain remnant institutions, so what do i know?

I will say the scouts culture and ideas of wholesome sanitized male fraternity one sees in general in first half of 20th century america have the taste of being a proto-gynocratic imposition over the “wild type” masculinity. Like something they experimented with before they realized they could annihilate masculinity altogether by banning unchaperoned male social contact. This is just an intuition, but its enough to make the author’s claims plausible to me.

I doubt on first principles and intuition alone that wild type sovereign masculinity is wholesome and acceptable to this society’s moral taboos. I suspect anything acceptable to those judging from today is just domesticated, and the real thing is the much more dangerous and alien wolf pack koryos that we have little knowledge of. Above all the koryos is a sovereign brotherhood, and sovereignty takes on many psychological loads and freedoms that a professionalized or educational mannerbund would not. Elites and professionals are different. The latter are domesticated. Consider for example the authority to sentence a member to death. A real koryos trivially has this, but nothing we have ever seen in our time does. On that grounds i have large and open minded uncertainty about the mores of true masculinity.

This is certainly my received

anon_xywu said in #3725 6h ago: received

I think, perhaps, the young radicals of today are at a disadvantage when tackling this kind of polemic, having not actually read queer theory. I'm neither young nor a radical, so I should be able to quote Leo Bersani on the gay fixation on mimicking machismo and heterosexual vitality. But I can't.

Since he was mentioned, I thought about Foucault. I've read him, at least. Before he actually went to Iran, he was sure that the Persians, having not fallen to modernity, following religious orders on sodomy (Khomeini said, from memory, that save for cases of incest, penetrating a man’s ass was a spiritually petty crime, one that could be cleansed through fasting and charity) might maintain the sort of faggy fraternity that he thought natural. He hoped they believed that men were made for men, with women as a fleeting distraction and reward. He was disappointed upon arrival, when, after discreetly asking what they thought of the homosexuals, to learn that his comrades would put sentence them to death. The Persian revolutionaries were on guard against the corrosive influence of same-sex lust. He flew immediately to San Francisco.

Foucault writes about sex and friendship. He was talking about the Greeks, too. But I still haven't read him well enough.

I can share my own experiences, for what they're worth. I grew up without enough women around, or fewer than most boys grow up with now. Some of the boys I grew up with confessed in later years to being homosexuals, usually when the rumors became too much, or they got busted trying to hook up with boys off Instagram. We had sussed it out before they even realized it themselves. Their attention was sometimes appreciated, since they could mimic girls. I mean that they asked about feelings, not that we let them suck us off (although that could have happened, I never heard of it, and adolescent homosexuals are, I believe, not generally attracted to other adolescents, but to the old men that get them as youngsters). They were never completely ostracized. We knew to exclude them from certain conversations, whether because we were creeped out, because we knew they had no valuable information to share, or because we didn't want to hurt their feelings.

I think, perhaps, th received

You must login to post.