And scholars have become more aware of how covert sexual desire can be. This is a second reason why the search for "homoeroticism" has occurred: many scholars have realized how often homosexuality appears in other guises throughout history, particularly during periods when same-gender attracted people are persecuted. Fear, sublimation, and simple circumspection are such strong factors in history that many scholars feel they must consider any reference to male friendship as a possible reference to male homosexual love.
I do not want to deny that any of the above is true. There is no doubt that past scholarship has overlooked historical references to homosexuality; there is no doubt that many such references are hidden under the guise of friendship. My impression, though, is that the primary reason for the search for "homoeroticism" is that our era does not take friendship seriously.
We can see this by examining the invented passage on incestuous references in Virgil. It may in fact be that Virgil’s description of Aeneas and Anchises is intended as a reference to incest. Indeed, given the frequency with which classical mythology refers to incest, I do not see how such an interpretation can be ruled out. But I think that most readers are likely to opt for the "non-incest" interpretation, by Occam’s Razor: because they believe the simplest explanation is the most likely one, and the simplest explanation is that Anchises and Aeneas have a non-incestuous father-son love for each other.
But such an interpretation requires us to believe that parents and children can have deep feelings for each other. We must believe that two people who have no sexual attraction to each other can demonstrate strong emotions and engage in striking behavior.
My contention is that, while the modern world continues to believe this of parents and children, many people no longer believe this is true of two unrelated men. We have ceased to believe that it is possible for a man to deeply love another man, unless that love is sexually based.
Many exceptions to this popular belief exist, of course; I will not bother to list them all. Platonic male friendships remain a staple of popular culture. Yet I believe that, increasingly, the platonic aspect of such friendships is being questioned. Careful observers have noted the number of gay jokes that have crept into these friendships, the number of disclaimers that are now required to assure observers that the friends have no sexual feelings toward each other. Despite the best efforts of male bonding clinics, popular culture still decrees that male friends who have just undergone highly traumatic events in their lives are allowed to do no more than thump each other a couple of times on the back, lest they be suspected of being gay.
It is kinda sad that it has to take one of the MOST TRAGIC moments in American history for two men to get very affectionate and genuinely loving towards each other. In the picture below, we see two guys being really close, one constantly rubbing the others' back and kissing him on the head for an extended period of time.
Because, to tell you the truth, this would've been a beautiful portrait of friendship regardless of whether it was 9/11 or just another ordinary day outside.
All of this is, I believe, a dual legacy of the Freudian revolution and the Victorian era. Freud’s part in sexualizing friendships is obvious enough, but it may not be as clear that the Victorian era is also to blame. For a variety of reasons, the Victorians put forward certain rigid standards for male behavior that had not previously existed. We, living on the other side of that great divide, take it for granted that males who touch each other for lengthy periods, who express feelings of strong love for each other, and who demonstrate that love through dramatic behavior must be sexually attracted to each other (rolls eyes). This just goes to show how well the Victorians did their work.
0 comments:
Post a Comment