|Sherlock & John|
In class before the break I read a bit about Montaigne's affection for La Boétie, and the very first comment I got from a pretty enlightened group was, "He was obviously gay."
|Montaigne and La Boétie, BFFs|
And then one of the essays I marked contained a discussion of the openness of sexual ethics today compared to historic restrictiveness. And I commented on the paper that I don't think we've come nearly as far as we think we have, even if we just focus on this part of the world.
Our sexual ethics have changed, for sure - over the relative short term in particular. I've lived long enough to see an unbelievable change in our respect for same-sex relationships, from killing them to revering them in my short lifetime. Now homosexuality is in fashion to the point that some people want a gay friend or two to make them more interesting by association. The same goes in some circles for polyandry. But we're still messed up about sex. And we don't understand our history on this enough to see our trajectory.
|R. & Julie|
|It's blue because it's so cold!|
The demand for a uniform sexual life for all, which is proclaimed in all these prohibitions, disregards all the disparities, innate and acquired, in the sexual constitution of human beings, thereby depriving fairly large numbers of sexual enjoyment and becoming a source of grave injustice.There's no evidence that Montaigne was gay, something he makes clear in "Of Friendship," but the suggestion of such is evidence that we still haven't grown enough as a culture to completely accept a variety of relationships including strong and lasting non-sexual friendships. That's a shame.