Armenians & Homosexuality

[TomServo]

Yeah, that whole metrosexual thing is ghey.

[axel]

I agree, there are certain androgynous tendecies that pervade now as the rule, and not the exception

If you think about it, it is a much deeper (and older) phenomenon. These are but the most exterior and troubling signs.

my whole point is that the spiritual factor takes precedence over the sociological one. that said, the sociological factor reinforces this tendency and creates a vicious circle.

while I do not share the worldview of their authors (and I am not much into esoteric stuff), the following references are very good reads, at least for their diagnosis of modernity.

Julius Evola: Revolt against the modern world
René Guénon: The Crisis of the Modern World

and we have introduced into our discourse the "metrosexual".

I have yet to hear about that.

[Anonymouse]

If you think about it, it is a much deeper (and older) phenomenon. These are but the most exterior and troubling signs.

my whole point is that the spiritual factor takes precedence over the sociological one. that said, the sociological factor reinforces this tendency and creates a vicious circle.

while I do not share the worldview of their authors (and I am not much into esoteric stuff), the following references are very good reads, at least for their diagnosis of modernity.

Julius Evola: Revolt against the modern world
René Guénon: The Crisis of the Modern World

The thing is, it's becoming more and more rampant. And I'm sure Nietzsche would have a thing or two to quibble about with these trends. As far as the second link, I noticed the author is against individualism. While I am a proponent of individualism, I should say, individuality, since anything that dances with an ism, is or becomes dogmatism.

I have yet to hear about that.

Never heard of Ryan Seacrest? Moreover, have you seen some of these Persian Armenian guys in Glendale and how effeminate they are?

[axel]

The thing is, it's becoming more and more rampant. And I'm sure Nietzsche would have a thing or two to quibble about with these trends. As far as the second link, I noticed the author is against individualism. While I am a proponent of individualism, I should say, individuality, since anything that dances with an ism, is or becomes dogmatism.

Well, Nietzsche is the embodiement of modern spirit, possibly one of its best expressions. He might have himself been gay btw. Yet he tends towards the aristocratic. So he might at least have despised what is common and vulgar about today's gay movement. I must say I don't share much with him nor with his followers most notably Cioran (the latter still being a good read eg 'History & Utopia'). Evola is much of a detractor of Nietzsche (he basically destroys his philosophy in a few pages of his book 'Ride the tiger') yet he seems to share his misconceptions about christianism (but that might be explained by the fact both men were faced with a degenerate version of the latter in the form of catholicism)

Individualism and strong individuality are indeed very different things. The generalization of the former actually coincides with the destruction of real individuality. how would you explain this apparent paradox that our individualistic society produces same-minded individuals with no character or personality?

btw, Evola is a strong individualist in your sense of the word.

Never heard of Ryan Seacrest? Moreover, have you seen some of these Persian Armenian guys in Glendale and how effeminate they are?

No, I have never been to Glendale. I live in Paris.

[axel]

I think what you believe to be your individualism is more of a reaction to egalitarianism. and it is not unrelated to that apparent dualism: the liberal and the social. IMO, one has to get beyond that and in fact realize that the latter are both twin brothers derived from the same philosophical premises, those of the so-called "enlightenment".

[Anonymouse]

Ah crap, I'm sorry. I was trying to quote and respond to you and pressed the wrong button, editing your post.

[Anonymouse]

I think what you believe to be your individualism is more of a reaction to egalitarianism. and it is not unrelated to that apparent dualism: the liberal and the social. IMO, one has to get beyond that and in fact realize that the latter are both twin brothers derived from the same philosophical premises, those of the so-called "enlightenment".

I already said I believe in individuality, not the -ism (although it has become a bad habit to use the word 'individualism'). You can now stop thinking of what I believe.

[axel]

From what I gather in my readings of Nietzsche, he was pointing to and there were undertones of this masculinity.

well yes in some sense, but possibly only superficially, if you associate domination with masculinity for example. If I recall, his critique of christianism is essentially based on it being a religion of submission... whereas he would likely argue judaism is one of domination. yet it so happens that judaism is more akin to the feminine principle (at least imho)
my reading of more minor works such as "the case of wagner" reinforced my opinion on the subject of his virility or lack thereof.

[winoman]

blah blah blah - all a bunch of rubbish and no more.

Homosexuality (behaviors...) is a natural phenomonon observed in most all mammalian speciaes and certainly has (likely) existed in humans since we became such. Additionally pretty much ever known human society has had (benn known/accepted to have had) amongst them homosexuals and most have had social/societal roles for such individuals (who display characteristics inconsistant with the prevailing sexual norms of the society). For instance the Scandinavians (Vikings) had men who were not warriors and who stayed in the villages dressed and acting much like the women - same is true for many native American cultures. We have already discussed the Greeks...and of course take a look at Turkish history in this regard (perhaps somewhat a continuation of the Greek practices in a sense - could be - I don't know with any certainty). Additionally many African and Asian cultures have rights of passage for both males and females that contain homosexual periods and such. And of course the evidence in pretty much all of these cultures is that certain individuals are either homosexual or bisexual for whatever reason and practice such - so this is all nothing new. Neither is the presence of individuals who aquire the outward habits normally associated with the opposite sex (feminity or being butch or what have you). This issue of a homosexual sub-culture (or ethnicity or whatever - I don't buy this label) is IMO more of a reaction to persecution in certain societies and I might add that this persecution seems to occur primarily in the monotheistic societies originally based on paternalistic sheparding groups and that Christianity and Islam seem to have taken these widely held "us vs them" attitudes regarding homosexuals placing them in the "them" category (with a whole host of other non-confoming behaviors) - I argue that the aberration - the perversion is these attitudes and not the homosexuality or presence of individuals who act contrary to the "standard"/expected gender roles. I think norrow minded mono-theists need to evolve to mor emodern and tolerant ways of thinking and then there would be no problem - in the meantime it is they (you) who are creating this issue where essentially there is (or should be) none.

[winoman]

I can agree with Mouse in this aspect - Christian-ism and Islam-ism certainly sucks and is a detriment to us all.