[Avodah] Clear Thinking about Male Homosexuals

[Jonathan Baker]

Rn Toby Katz:

> [2]  It is not true that people feel no instinctive revulsion at  
> father-daughter incest.  On the contrary, what Lot did with his daughters  is 
> considered something shameful and disgusting, and the daughter who named her  child 
> "Moav -- from Father" -- is condemned as particularly brazen.  I  believe 

Actually, the evidence you cite, that it is condemned, attests exactly the
opposite of what you want to prove.  Lot's daughters was a natural act,
for stated reasons.  It is condemned BY THE TORAH, which DEFINES incest
as an illegal act.  So Lot's daughters are prima facie evidence that 
incest is natural, if not normative.

In fact, the Gemara in, I think, Shabbos, somewhere in the 80s I think, 
says that Bnei Yisrael cried over their [forbidden] relations when they
were given the Torah, because now those relationships were defined as
forbidden.

So not only is it natural for goyim, it's natural for Jews as well.  Only
God's Law defines it as illegal, therefore we, and societies based on 
Biblical morality, avoid it and treat it as immoral.

> [3]  "Evolutionary advantage"?  Perhaps you should rather have  said, 
> "survival advantage." Evolution is an unproven hypothesis and even if it did 

Evolution is a fact, no matter how many Christian zealots like to claim 
otherwise.  The descent of Man is the unproven hypothesis, the idea that
natural selection is sufficient to explain the diversity of species and
the development of mankind.

> occur, it was Divinely guided.  We have to say that the natural attraction 

Divinely guided, does fit what I believe about evolution.

> between men and women is something that was implanted in us by our Creator so

but not that.  See above for Scriptural and talmudic evidence to the
contrary.

 * * *

Meanwhile, to the unclear thinking in the OP:

I realize this is a bit behind the times, because I batch up Avodah
digests and read them every two weeks or so, but still, the inconsistency
rankled.

JFS:
> Micha Berger wrote on Fri Feb 17 14:13:56 2012:
 
> > Pederasy and homosexuality are different things that usually have
> > very different etiologies.
 
> Etymologically, pederasty is related to pedophilia, because the
> ancient Greeks tolerated male-on-male sexual intercourse only between
> a man and a boy.  But I meant that term in the modern English sense --
> "anal intercourse (especially with a boy)" -- and, more specifically,
> I was just looking for a succinct English word that described
> male-on-male sexual intercourse, I had no intention of conveying the

Mishkav zochor would have been clearer, as you say.  Often halachic 
terms do not translate well to other languages.

Using a term that can be so easily confused, and of which confusion you
admit you were aware, is not clear thinking, unless one is using the 
term for polemical purposes, which goal you claimed was not yours.

When I realized your post was equating pederasty with male homosexuality,
I could not actually read the rest, because you were equating (to make
the analogy to heterosexual relations) all heterosexual relations to 
statutory rape.  All sexual relations are nonconsentual relations
between adults and minors?  You were not thinking clearly, or you were
writing some kind of polemic, therefore you had belied your stated purposes.

To quote from the Wikipedia article on the word, it shows that your
attempt to include normal consentual adult homosexual relations in
"pederasty" does not in fact conform to contemporary usage - almost
all definitions, from the OED to dictionaries of homosexual jargon,
emphasize the adult-minor aspect of the relationship.

* * *

The commonly accepted reference definitions of pederasty refer to a
sexual relationship, or to copulation, between older and younger males.
The OED offers: "Homosexual relations between a man and a boy; homo-
sexual anal intercourse, usually with a boy or younger man as the
passive partner."[24] The concise OED has: “Sexual intercourse between
a man and a boy.”[25] When describing pederasts, some focus solely on
the mechanics of copulation, such as the Merriam-Webster (on-line edition):
“one who practices anal intercourse especially with a boy”.[26] Other
dictionaries offer a more general definition, such as "homosexual rela-
tions between men and boys"[27] or "homosexual relations, especially
between a male adult and a boy or young man."[28] The limitation of
pederasty to anal sex with a boy is contested by sexologists. Francoeur
regards it as "common but incorrect,"[29] while Haeberle describes it
as "a modern usage resulting from a misunderstanding of the original
term and ignorance of its historical implications."[30]

Academic and social studies sources propose more expansive definitions
of the term. The Encyclopedia of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender &
Queer Culture offers “The erotic relationship between an adult male
and a youth, generally one between the ages of twelve and seventeen, in
which the older partner is attracted to the younger one who returns his
affection.”[5] The Encyclopedia of Homosexuality suggests "Pederasty
is the erotic relationship between an adult male and a boy, generally
one between the ages of twelve and seventeen, in which the older partner
is attracted to the younger one who returns his affection, whether or
not the liaison leads to overt sexual contact."[31]

--
        name: jon baker              web: http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker
     address: jjbaker at panix.com     blog: http://thanbook.blogspot.com