Re: OK why the title boylovers?
Submitted by response X on March 24 2002 19:52:22
In reply to OK why the title boylovers? submitted by sally on March 24 2002 12:43:20
|
As I see it, "BL," and what it connotes, is a term that only makes sense in a certain social-cultural context, that is, in a warped, negative (amartano/"sinful"), and exploitative one such as ours. You don't see the Australian aboriginal tribes (as only one example) that practice pederasty obsessed with distinction-making and division-creating and pent-up feelings that lead one to firmly declare, "You're this X!" or "You're that Y!" In other words, Western techno-society, through its self-hatred and willful ignorance, has forced the need to self-create a minority status-concept which refers to a type or manner of erotic and loving feelings. When you really think about it, the designation "BL" is rather ridiculous. But what is even more ridiculous and absurd is the society itself which has regulated and boxed-in erotic expression to such a degree that a "declared status" of an individual who happens to feel tenderly about a kind of its fellow species can only but emerge. I refuse to be boxen-in and categorized by arbitrary-by-the-time social constructs. I have found myself aesthetically and emotionally attracted to those (both sexes) who happen to have made relatively few orbital revolutions around our sun (a.k.a. "children," a term which in itself is a social construct by way of the Industrial Revolution) as well as to those (both sexes) who made "many" orbital revolutions around the sun (a.k.a. "adults"). Sexuality is a very big thing--it is not merely "lust" and a bed-time thing; it is rooted in the very marrow of our being, and God, who is beyond all of our feeble concepts, is the Author of it. The big problem in our society is that when simple and basic, give-and-take emotional nuturance is forcibly shut down, to be replaced by fanatic consumerism, culturally sanctioned desires for inert objects like money and commodities, the energies of honest-to-goodness love are seen to become more and more diverted to unhealthy, object-oriented sex. You people hypocritically and neurotically wish to focus on the latter, whereas I and others try to recapture that which has been stolen from us by a commodity-driven culture. Needless to say, there is a good, decent, ennobling side to "BL" and/or "GL", and there is also a reckless and unhealthy side. You simply cannot toss all of it into one trashbin called "sin" or "sexual desire." All that "BL" really suggests, like any form of human attaction, is a deep appreciation of a manner of being as such is manifested by a certain form of the body and a quality of thought. (What is "wrong" with that? What else is there?) As a side note, let me add that, for me, it is possible that this particular "manner of being" can be manifested by those more chronologically challenged (adults) though I have not usually found it to be the case. I think if our society was healthier, committed to fulfilling the human potential of each human member, that you have many more adults who would have the special intrinsic beauty that most children seem to have at some point in their childhood. |
Follow ups: