Saturday, July 7, 2018

Alexander the Twink


Introducing the Alexander Topics

On the issue of Alexander the Great, this one alluded to his sexuality and its relationship to "his" history and, more importantly, our perception of it tinted by the lens of what salacious thoughts we want to, or are supposed to, think about sexuality. Consider the mentioned allusion:
[as though] Alexander the Great made all the plans and not some otherwise-straight general who desperately liked traps and tried to make the best he could out of some spunky little dude in a metal skirt in a time before makeup and hormone replacement therapy.
Alexander's easily accessible choice in lower-body wear is not the issue here; rather, we focus on a great conundrum that was received with excitement by then-modern Americans before they decided to drop gay stuff almost completely in favor of protecting fag-roof-tossers' rights to move in next door. In realistic sense, it's perfectly plausible, although mathematically minimal ("unlikely"), that a male homosexual would've been a great military figure in the "accomplishes things" sense rather than the "attains rank" sense. Alexander's sexuality throughout history has been a naughty little itch, as people who are more familiar with homosexual males and with militaries realize there is a problem with Alexander's gayness, want him to be a hero because militaries are cool and Western Civ 1 is cool, but don't want him to be gay, so there's a long and embarrassing tradition of people covering up and willfully ignoring and discouraging junior scholarship leading to the obvious and inevitable conclusion about that aspect of who the historical Alexander was. The desire to out him as the twentieth century advanced was, unsurprisingly given the known liars involved in creating the historiography and popular image, nearly as flawed as the older perspective. A school of little wooden buildings teaching children in 1800 about "just straight" Alexander defies source material, intellectual then-standards of honesty, and immemorial decency itself to assign a false identity to a favored character; a school of big televisions teaching children in 2000 about "just gay" Alexander similarly offends source material, its own currently purported standards of honesty, and immemorial decency yet again. It is not surprising to find, say, modern Europeoid people building and worshiping an elaborate web of purportedly well-cited lies, so if one is interested in what actually happened or who people actually were, one is wise not to rely on whatever their popular model currently is. (Not to imply that any other group of Terrans is even marginally as capable or as honest in crafting their stories; just speaking objectively about our local believers and most prolific constructors.)

Gay Straight Pride?

That conundrum, of Alexander's homosexuality, is solidified by the fact that he was said to have won battles and led armies and not broken down in weird spastic fits that ruined everything he supposedly wanted to do--he may have done that, perhaps certainly did it and it's verified, but whatever he did, it didn't keep the armies from doing what they historically needed to do. The late twentieth, early 21st century depiction of male homosexuality in popular culture suffers greatly from its borrowing from the early twentieth century version of lying flattery which Jewish filmmakers used to ensnare and further deceive Europeoid, then worldwide, audiences; e.g., the hero is rugged and tough and independent and a free thinker unlike everyone else, and when gayness was added, he is identical but likes to fuck dudes in the butt. This was and is oft-celebrated, despite its stripping of aspects of character from the supposedly lionized heroes, because it presented a useful agenda toward civil dominance to argue indirectly that sexuality was a negligible component of character, when traces of understood association between sexuality and character, which were personally and scientifically visible, had not yet been stamped fully out of acceptable discourse. Of course, as with "trans rights" and so many of the other social justice crusades in which America has led the way in the 20th and 21st centuries, it was terribly harmful to the people purportedly being saved, too. If American society honestly addressed transsexuality, it would be better able to handle the drastic change in suicide rates for that group, whereas pretending it's all normal leaves those problems to fester unknown.

(Similarly to other uses of dialogue decrying discrimination, there were very intelligent people who knew that "discrimination" wasn't the reason transsexuals killed themselves so much, but threw the bone to the idiot Europeoid public to distract the issue for another few decades, letting transsexuals keep dying because it furthered the cause of anti discrimination stuff. As with feigned attempts to give African Americans more job skills by fighting the "discrimination" that was keeping them from doing well on math tests, the Congoids themselves were expendable means to an end, like so many Parisian communards in latter years. The exploitation, derision, and destruction shown toward people of Alexander's type is similar, though not nearly as intense. The Jewish crimes against humanity are many, which is easily known, yet more varied and discriminatory than are commonly known. African American urban violence in the twentieth century, for example, is a "but for" situation, where the civil rights movement changed communal focus from whatever it might have been to a fruitless blaming that spiraled to microaggressions, and there was nothing left but shooting your neighbors. The Jews climbed upon the backs of homosexuals and transsexuals also, directing all community and public attention toward a focus on mostly illusory victimization where the opportunity for self understanding and self improvement was destroyed. For example, the local community center has forums where LGBTQ+ may discuss being discriminated against, but not the utterly private and socially untouchable moments of doubt in self identity and what to carve or not that lead so many shemales to the lonely pistol, and, like an angry young black man feeling he needs revenge on some amorphous white mass for his inability to even apply to trade school, s/he is left culturally ignored by definition, as to the things that really drive the decision to swallow or point at convenience store clerks the nine millimeter. It is the choice, the responsibility, of the individual to perform the action, and perhaps it could and should have been done better, but the media and cultural context which the Jew has long provided its victim have been necessary and sufficient conditions to drive so much of the mess we've seen.)

The Importance of Identity in Identity

Attempting to present someone as a type of thing with an identity, an individual history and a shared history as part of a group one probably doesn't nor cannot choose, and so forth, is vital to a better, or even a marginally accurate, representation of that person. It was once not thought of as crude or insulting for a historian to point out that someone had a womb and ovaries and certain hormone levels that are proven to affect behavior, anymore than it was considered improper to point out that someone was loaded with testosterone and thought the most important thing to do--ever.--was to fuck hot chicks a lot. Understanding that someone was a childless female in her late 30s, or a male in his mid teens, plays a vital role in understanding the complexity of their personality or motivation in a biographical sense. Modern Terrans hate doing this, because as heretics of their own violently preferred religion--belief in Bangism, or the Genesis-style creation story coupled with random mutation creating random variance in planetary organisms--they also like to believe, very strongly, in the fact that their entrapment by evolution can be trumped by their participation in a greater culture of believing in things that somehow transcended everything else that they said they believed in.

Though all humans, male humans and female humans, hale humans and physically crippled humans, young FDR and polio FDR, humans currently standing on top of skyscrapers surrounded by armed men aiming guns at them and humans standing on solid ground alone, have different aspects to their situation, and their characters, than humans doing otherwise from an infinite set of possibilities, their circumstances affect their behavior and perspective, and it is ludicrous to pretend they don't. So too their sexual identity and motivation(s) during their primes. If we're too embarrassed to admit that our own molecular frame affects what we do while we're in it, we may try to argue that others are similarly unaffected; poor scholarship on sexual identity is largely a component of this, where people pretended Alexander was straight in order to pretend that their own personality was unaffected by what they thought about that underage waitress that one time they worked hard to forget. Our recent and lustful tradition of saying otherwise characterizes the failure of our pretense at accepting identity by denying it, and it will be one of many tragedies for the study of human sexuality that we, ironically, tried to pretend it wasn't important even as we tried to pretend it was important.

Which raises the question, since we know Alexander was probably homosexual, was he a bottom or a top? It's a sexual detail we're not really willing to talk about, because even when Nu Euro liberals cared more about gays than they did about the Muslims' rights to throw them off roofs, they were squeamish to get into details. So, too, was history, which can reveal friendships that were way too close through clever reference in discussing other topics, permitting scribes to note that Alexander was a fag without coming right out and saying it; in such glaringly obvious, but always defensible as innocent, ways can someone record history truthfully without actually saying explicitly what happened, such as "Alexander and Cretoss consulted about the terrain long into the night without tolerating the interference of any others of the soldiers, as they had begun doing of late as the terrain changed." It's not the whole truth, but it's the truth and nothing but the truth, and it's rather a polite way of recording what happened, and anyone who's not trying to cover it up or isn't just dumb or ignorant or whatever would be able to read the real story, but free of squeamish detail. Much classical and modern scholarship has been the discussion of Alexander's hard work evaluating the terrain so often, like a bunch of morons who couldn't read between the lines; of course they probably could, but didn't want to, read what the sources were saying, and people who didn't read the sources suffered ignorance from their trust. We do that now, too, as a different set of people with different desires reads the same lack of meaning out of the source material.

The Utility of Sexual Identity to us Moderns

Alexander's status returns as a question, then: bottom, or top? Alexander's history doesn't make much sense if "top," but in the current era of scholarship, it's evil and completely wrong to say that, because it suggests that you can know a lot of gay couples and notice differences between them that seem to correspond to their sexual role, personal lol because of this one gay dude I knew who somehow turned his rainbow-painted custom Beetle sideways in the garage and panicked and had to call for help, it was seriously stuck and in retrospect it's amazing he was able to turn such ridiculously tight mini-corners in the garage that was closed when he was theoretically trying to drive out of it considering all the crap that those hoarders kept in the garage. (Jesus, it reportedly took almost twenty tiny three point turns to get the damn thing out and amazingly no statues were knocked over.)

(And there's room, maybe only there, for a component of positive socialization, because that was a story I first heard from his partner, and he just told it to me as a story, without doing any more to introduce them, but then we were friends and he'd also told me, "Oh, by the way, I'm the top," not in those words but cleverly, since the Beetle-story could've only been generated by the "bottom," and he didn't need to be crass or vulgar to convey that information, but merely to share an anecdote that could only be explained if he were the "top" and his partner were the "bottom." Whereas straight couples where you can identify the sex at first glance already have that basis covered, "gay" couples do not, and since they might meet a lot of people who can't tell, having a Beetle story really helps make it clear at the outset. So if anyone's LGBTQ etc., they should really appreciate how acknowledging sexual roles, in a polite but maybe indirect way, can really make the process of socialization easier. Gay couples meeting gay couples don't have that problem, since they have all sorts of insider knowledge of subtleties everyone else would miss, or maybe local or temporal signals about it, down to the level of who introduces whom or tone of voice--which is often so obvious that otherwise-oblivious straight people can pick up on it, too--but if we're ever going to have a civil society where the occasional buttsecks couple can be a weird couple instead of a couple of forgotten suicides that cost everyone more money overall, that kind of permissible acknowledgement is going to be necessary. That kind of lighthouse also serves great for people who hate, or merely don't like, or merely try to avoid, gay people or gay couples, because the kinds of things you worry about a "top" doing around kids are different than those subversions which have a greater degree of risk of coming from a "bottom." For example, certain types of young males may be more vulnerable to being raped, others to trying fingernail polish, others to spending all their weekends at the local vintage theater becoming Audrey Hepburn fans and buying $6 bags of period popcorn and spending way too much time with the local gay community, and "tops" and "bottoms" have different presumed risk levels for such things. Protecting, or guiding, boys and young men in such situations, is similar to the way that, in modern society, protecting and guiding girls and young women in potentially harmful situations can no longer rely on pre-emptive social vetting rituals unless you give a lot of money and time to Jesus and lie to yourself that Hollywood is impotent; knowing who people are is perhaps the only way this can really be accomplished without an insular community that people say you can't preserve in the modern world anyway. Ergo it really helps everyone out to have a Beetle story, even if it just disgusts you anyway. If you can be friends with that, it improves it, and if you're really averse to that, it's a warning sign, maybe the only one you can ever get without going Muslim with the roof-tossing.)

Season that thought with your own personal experiences if you have them, and many do, such that even Hollywood has been embarrassed into designing sexual roles into the gay characters they like to portray. Even in their ultimate "White America is bad, marriage and children detract from nature, but homosexuality is good and natural and pure" Brokeback Mountain, where the homos were also physical ass-kickers in other scenes, they had to admit the interpersonal dynamic of top/bottom in the scenes actually about the characters' relationship.

Alexander could have certainly been a top, except for the aforementioned way that he got emotional about "his own decisions" to switch "advisers" or change plans or stop or start, and it really does him and his lover(s) a disservice to make him or them responsible for everything that happened, that could have happened, or that should have happened. The battle plan and achievements associated with that particular army, but consistently linked to Alexander as a ruler in full awareness and control of his own functions and legacy, tell a story that doesn't match with a top. And, this must be said--for Alexander was most likely a "bottom" in his most private and intimate partnership(s)--there are plenty of male homosexuals, perhaps in contravention of a lot of others but still there, who prefer homosexual activity but only in the context of their version of sexual dominance, and can be smart and well-ordered and not freak out in insane perceived (rightly or wrongly; just blame them for being chauvinists with bad opinions if you don't want to think that they're right) feminine-like or feminine-imitating ways, and not stand out unless they get lucky with some dude and someone really clever notices. The perverse, identity-less liberal version of homosexuality has often blended this thin slice of reality with story, wherein movie homosexuals are tough, sensible, unemotional everymen who just happen to like fucking dudes on the side.

Shunning the Bottom

Unfortunately for gay advocates and the movies, Hollywood's interest in portraying gays Just Like You And Me has been a wash in the sense of the attempt to force acceptance of gays on the unwilling general public by conflating the identity of gays and then-popular figures. This has resulted in "top" figures in entertainment media being presented as the ideal gays, where a dude who drinks tea with his pinkie up but also is a martial arts instructor who lifts heavy and has great deltoids is presented as the gay ideal, and that underlying disapproval of the "bottom" is still there. That's a longstanding thing in the gay community, back to prehistory, where the dude who takes it in the butt is adeemed less worthy than the dude who fucks the butt--and there are maybe obvious, maybe disgusting, maybe rational, maybe objectively true and eminently understandable reasons why humans who did know about or participate in homosexual activity may have currencied the bottoms and given more social respect to tops. It's a bitter pill for gays and gay activists that it was and is this way; it's a skeleton in the closet for people, gay or "straight" or straight, who wanted to pretend the culturally accepted MSM buttfucking lined the way to paradise. There are gay-specific, gay-targeted, gay-loving articles and essays about this condescension of tops toward bottoms, and about the non-gay-communication of social missives, so it's not like only straight people have noticed, even though movies and teevee sometimes try to pretend that there's nothing to notice. So it isn't just straight people who have noticed this within the blinders of their weird prejudice against men consensually rubbing genitals in the tail end of the digestive system. And there is a long and well-understood tradition in non-blindered society that you can expect certain behaviors from the top and the bottom, make certain social demands or assumptions about them if you socialize with them, et cetera, to which some are completely blind and which many others take completely for granted, just like there's a whole church subculture(s) in small-town America that performs similar social ordering functions for certain kinds of women based on marital status and displayed freneticism or moderation which influences, like or dislike aside, how a committee would decide to assign potluck requests and carnival tending.

The shunning of the gay bottom is, perhaps, a private shame for the organized gay community that wants to pretend gays are so virtuous they never notice things, but in its own way, mirrors the relationship of feminism to human history. Yes, gay bottoms are treated as more likely to freak out, to be emotional about random stuff, to be sensation seeking, to change their affections at random rather than retain them based on an honor-like system of loyalty, and so forth: essentially, they're presumed to have more feminine behavioral patterns. In employment, sports, socializing in mixed groups that don't also have orgies, et cetera, these behavior patterns tend to fit gay "bottoms" even when sex isn't an issue at all. The right cocktail of character traits that makes a functioning human female seems similarly predominant in people who could stand to play that role without actually being a reproduction-capable female, and we see such behavior patterns dominate in plenty of other non-reproducing human societies also, where the most tender-looking girl in preschool, or the sweetest old gal at the senior dance, or the terminal ward counseling group, shows that it actually isn't about making babies that perceptions of "male" and "female," or "more like whatever masculine means" and "more like whatever feminine means" made a difference to how human beings treated and protected and perceived one another.

Back to Alexander

Returning to Alexander, then, we consider the modern historical view that a likely gay bottom/receiver was responsible for everything "he" supposedly did. And obviously, standard history makes no sense if he'd been a bottom, and it is really callous of us to pretend for centuries that he wasn't interested in screwing dudes, rather serving them in that way, and then to come to terms with it but pretend he was a gay "top," rather crushing and disregarding and otherizing a major component of his self-realized character. That's disempowering and discriminatory and regressive and all that, like so many of the terribly loaded but supposedly enlightened things we do now, and more importantly for our purposes, it sticks with the standard self-reported lie-history of the Nu Euros who took only two thousand years to invent the train and the airplane while killing themselves as fast as they could.

Alexander's being gay, and not dominating some single bottom or little covey of receivers, makes it unlikely he was a sexually dominant male who also pouted and risked things emotionally like he is said (by his contemporaries, not his later fans) to have done. Read up on stock Alexander history and note his moods, his spurts of deciding things should be done and not done, and more importantly, the way he relies so heavily on his "advisers" to tell him not only how something should be conquered, but if it should be conquered at all. More likely, Alexander was a flighty little sexually-submissive gay man whose conquest was driven by someone else who was fine with letting his little pretty boy take all the credit, because rather than caring about appearing in history books with his face on everything, he was fine with really being the one who took the territory, driving the point home, accomplishing the trackable goals, and not being displayed as the one who had. Considering the shameful, cowardly nature of that historical audience--humans in, say, 1944--he had nothing to lose. Considering also how modern societies, perhaps all societies, and modern economies, have been designed, perhaps fatally, perhaps amorally, around taking credit rather than what really happened, it's perhaps too confusing for the modern to contemplate, but if you can imagine any kind of truth or goodness that transcends "the Big Bang" or "things happen randomly and then die forever" religion, or at least are willing to contemplate that someone else could be that wrong and insane because of a lack of well funded public schools, you can imagine them serving a different master.

That's an interesting dynamic, and a wistful tale about whoever it was. Again, read the stock history of Alexander's career, and try to figure out which occasionally mentioned adviser or less important lord who showed up now and again, was topping him not just in an occasional way, but in a consistently controlling way that would explain the story. There are a lot of possibilities, which raises separate questions about how much and when exactly, and increases the potential drama level to who really owns him? A really clever dude would've probably been nameless, just one of the many presumed historical hangers on, but like a real version of the black holes bending light where you can see it without seeing it. "I wish I could quit you, Alexander." Lol, as though such a mastermind would've been dissuaded by weird inner qualms caused by his struggle with turmoil over whether he should or shouldn't, because during the period, there was a noticeable percentage of dudes fucking other dudes but still having lots of kids and being respected community patriarchs and giving orders lots of people had to follow to cause historical events to happen that we now think of as significant. That history is tainted by the twentieth and twenty-first century western sickness of wanting to make all male friendships presumed sexual, which is sick and sad and wrong in its own way, but the classical pederasts who did it together for way too much time can be safely presumed to be at least occasional lovers who left their mark on history, making Alexander's proclivities no longer so rare-sounding. And despite our molecularly-denialist wishes, the male body is undeniable in the way that testosterone disproves all feminist theories; since each male possesses only one dick and one butt, the mechanics of the act have to create social "tops" and "bottoms," and appurtenant social roles that will be sought out and will affect the people who adopt them, giving us something to work with. Find who really drove the conquering with Alexander for a figurehead if you want; it would be cool if there's a book somewhere that mentions the right name, but it's equally probable the name never appears, because Alexander and his lover knew the score, and Alexander knew how to play his role, and perhaps a plurality even at the time had nothing more than suspicions about how that moody little twink could keep accomplishing things in between pouting fits. Plenty of female CEO-types have played that role for their husbands since feminist industrialism, theoretically free to fly off the handle and start making weird, independent decisions, but smart enough to play their role so well it wasn't even really a "role," like the Chinese-American woman I knew once who owned like sixteen small businesses with her name on everything, and often showed up and smiled at people and stuff, but acquired and sold and merged per her husband's own nefarious plans and was really a living emblem of their success at both having an inherent understanding of reality which included fulfilling current social roles as part of it, a responsibility as serious as dealing with a flood or a drought.

And a wise woman would do that: would express her husband's business acumen while protecting her husband from feminist bullshit, thereby being a better feminist than the feminists, taking the secret to her grave so that her "woman managed" stuff would be stronger for her daughters to inherit. And yes, I have personally known women who've had a better sense of that sort of thing than their husbands, but in statistical terms, that's irrelevant, because if you can get featured in some crappy local paper with ten thousand readers for being a female business, and if you can have the Women's Studies department at the local university feeding an extra twenty students a year to order dinner with you at least once, it's a smart opportunity, and a good businessperson, male or female, takes advantage of it if there is a way to: and sometimes, that means throwing the feminists a bone, just like you don't headbutt people in American football because it causes extra brain damage and reduces player ability fast. It doesn't mean you're stupidly prejudiced against the head. In the 1950s, maybe you pay some pretty girl to sit at a desk and talk effusively to clients when they arrive, and in the 2000s, maybe you put some ball busting woman who looks joyless in the corner office and work from home. Disaster preparedness, people.

As a human being, rather than as a general, Alexander's purported achievements are greater than the official version, and it's shameful that our story of ourselves could never acknowledge it, but had to make everyone a "top" after so long of pretending everyone only liked chicks. We presume Alexander's real lover wouldn't have appreciated being rhetoricized as a receiver, and that's maybe why it's best we've forgotten his name and have no paintings of his likeness to offend by our disgusting, offensive assumption that behavior does not give a line on identity.

'Zander's Story


www.ratemyking.com.hotornot

Let's try a more realistic take on the Alexander story. Young heir to the country of Macedon born in 356 B.C., grows up without distinction, gets raised by a couple of traveling nurses, and does the famous story where a horse trader brings his father a horse too nervous to ride, but Alexander feels touchy feely toward the horse and soothes it into accepting being ridden by men. He goes to an all-boys boarding school where he is bullied and initiated and meets several lifelong male friends that he later appoints to his army, his father sends him to tag along with some existing armies as the nominal commander, but Alexander brings in his male friends from boarding school to advise and comfort him, pissing off his dad for some reason.

Alexander's father feels like his existing family isn't serving him, finds a second woman to marry, Alexander is conflicted about his identity since such an heir would be fully Macedonian by blood rather than his merely half, and Alexander pouts and leaves the city with his mother whom he is very close to and they cry and fret about why father is so horny and interested in heirs. Father Philip gets mad at all Alexander's slutty relationships and exiles four of his male friends. A vengeful dude kills Philip publicly and some of Alexander's old male friends show Alexander how they can slay the killer when the killer trips. Alexander becomes king at 20, and he sorta continues his father's ongoing, incomplete military campaigns with his collection of manly generals shepherding him.



Around this time, after 336 B.C., Alexander starts following the advice of some very commanding presence(s), and butchers his other family members so they won't divulge whatever they think they know. At some point, little skirty boy, whose coterie artists keep portraying nude in hunts and battles for some reason, stops the party lifestyle and goes on a sudden, inexplicable campaign that we all know about: in sustained fashion, these aren't the actions of a deferring, spastic receiver, but rather, one whose primary relationship has gotten more serious. The easy temptation is to assume that his childhood companion, Cleitus the Black, was finally reaping what he'd sown, in the military realm this time, and was the mastermind behind this sudden decision of Alexander's to have a life plan other than hanging around the capital being gifted and appreciated by his reliable entourage of boyfriends. Whether Cleitus or some other faceless "top," though, skirty boy was being put to use outside the bedroom, and the big campaigns started, and whoever was riding him managed to use peer pressure and socially expected image to keep the train rolling. Although the stigma for or against homosexual behavior was not then what it has been, respectively, during other phases of human history, some discretion was clearly practiced, because Alexander's tendencies kept making it into the historical record, the certain identity of his one true top never did. Speculation abounds, but at this point in Alexander's life, we face the conundrum of a twinky party boy figureheading an expansive military campaign, in utter defiance of his character and ambitions previous.

The cool real unknowable stories here would've been great. Late one night, someone hears something, he's finally got them this time, it's not right for a king to...what's in the tent Gherossus, I think you know what's in the tent Gherossus, stab, it's okay, you can come out now, he won't be talking, go over there, I'll get some men and clean this up. And another embarrassment is spared from dirtying the little twink's hide. It is somewhat famous that Alexander died without any children or other heirs, and that when asked to whom he wanted to leave his kingdom, he said, "tôi kratistôi," or "to the strongest," which was probably his passion, and probably an understanding that, whoever his favored top was whom he'd been docilely fronting that entire time, that person could not be given the kingdom, and would face a lot of strife from all the lesser men who'd been hovering around Alexander since the beginning, but that he had confidence or hope (you be the judge) that his "top" could do well in any such struggle, or at least a recognition that he couldn't give his kingdom to who it really belonged to, without him there to take it for the team of two. After his death, some chick claimed to be carrying his son, and that threw an interesting playing piece into the wars of succession, but Alexander's likely self-chosen role as a gay "bottom" rather than a top is reaffirmed by his rather ludicrous choice, if he were presumed to be a top, to not mount a chick at least once, or a few times, to pump out some kids. Not only his sexual preferences, but his preferences in self-imagery, are expressed in that choice, for many a gay "top," whether or not engaging in everything in which they'd like to engage, can also top a human female without much trouble, whereas the twink often feels it would be too indicative of an acceptance of undesired responsibility, a fuller manhood, and a thousand other little factors that are embarrassing for our supposedly gay-embracing societies to consider. If we weren't so full-throttle on our fantasy of completely accepting all gays as manly tops, we could graph the proportions and percentages through which gay "bottoms" have and raise children, date and marry women, and why they do or don't--but Alexander himself gives and lives for us a suitable example, even when our scholars are too squeamish to do so.

Novelize it. Posit the rather fantastic, if rather gross, story of this expansively minded military man wanting a boy so bad he takes him, and then spends years controlling him for their joint benefit, ceding every social and historic mantel to his little pet in exchange for real results. Who had to get beaten, who executed, and who simply sent away to avoid breaking the narrative? And, was it even unknown, then? Perhaps the past was not so embarrassed as the present, and perhaps there's a really tumultuous love story worked in there where Alexander slutted around his old advisers until the field could finally be narrowed, through threat or the ill winds of war, down to a point where things could stabilize.

So many problems of Alexandrian history are solved by being able to re-conceptualize him as having the social role records of him describe. And in theory, that's what we're supposed to do with history, rather than make of it a story that validates our current sexual preferences. We've failed miserably, which is why "straight Alexander" predominated for so long, and then "huge top Alexander" or maybe "topping from the bottom Alexander," all contravening evidence so that we could use a trope we thought was good to match a trend we thought, at the time, was good. Matching character to circumstance, and demanding that both conform to our desired image of Alexander, ignores the real evidence and slays, as far as our historical memory goes, any traces of the real Alexander that remained. Again, it's ironic that such a pro-homosexual culture would be so prejudiced, right? Against a sexual preference? Yet it's not really ironic; our weird militarism in the occupied West and our natural aversion to MSM buttsecks, coupled with our belief that we are so potent that nothing which disgusts us is actually disgusting--our quest to dominate even ourselves, regressing our most intimate thought processes so we never have to get to know ourselves--has combined to put us in this historical period where it's acceptable to notice some things but not others, all homosexual men are burly big top Everyman who can drive cars fast and just might casually fuck a woman better than you can, they are not and never have been vaguely effeminate in any of their mannerisms that is just a stupid prejujdice how dare you suggest that everyone may choose their own identity but not that one not that one no no no no. In fact, our extended and ironclad history of cascading aversions to this or that identity, which might be called "childish" or "embarrassing" or just "stupid," makes it a good bet to play the odds that western scholars have fucked up again.

The moodiness; the hints of turning back that are never quite realized until someone who knows the army really well "insisted" that he (accepted that he finally got his wish that he'd been dreaming about for what'd felt like eons) read the men differently and shifted his mood; the forced lionization of this one particular prize, like someone didn't want to take the credit but wanted to make sure someone special to him did--it's a great drama. We can imagine a hundred little times where someone cried or had a fit, he patted his shoulders and wiped his tears and stood him up, you're the king dammit, these men need you, are you sure it's right hombre, why can't we go home, I'm going to bring you into history my little Alexander, come with me, tell them we march in the morn, whoever he was maybe he thought his prize was so enjoyable, enjoyed the mild intrigue or the naughty escapes so much, or just wanted to be a real conqueror the opinions of a bunch of twentieth century schoolkids that it was his pretty doing the work be damned.

MSM buttsecks may be rilly gross, but if you can endure the reference, there were likely some really steamy stories in there, where the interpersonal dynamics of who actually fed the commands to the armies, told the king what to say, and yet who had to deal with him ending up repeatedly in some other officer's tent (officers who often disappeared shortly thereafter--thanks, ancient writers, for putting it in boring prose we're able to allow ourselves to digest), his spasmodic fits about whether we'd keep going or stop or turn back, and trying to balance an image that would keep the army moving, which depended on someone completely incapable in these realms but you can't tell the men the truth or this is all over come on get up get up people are counting on you!

1 comment:

  1. Invest in Ripple on eToro the World’s Best Social Trading Network!

    Join 1,000,000's who have already discovered smarter methods for investing in Ripple.

    Learn from established eToro traders or copy their trades automatically!

    ReplyDelete