Hi Esther. Thank you for these thoughtful essays! It seems to me that the 'sin' you are describing is not in the sexual act per se, but in the culture of promiscuity surrounding it. Would you agree with that characterization? I would say that the attitudes towards sex that you described in the previous essay for example, while they might be especially prevalent among gay men, certainly have their straight counterparts (the narcissistic approach to sex you find in Updike for example doesn't seem so different from the memoirs you quote). On the other hand, there are gay men in committed monogamous relationships, to whom the tendencies you describe do not seem to apply. So I'm left wondering: would you say there is a fundamental difference still?
No, the sin is in the sexual act itself, though monogamy is in fact rara avis even between affectionate gay couples. Of its essence, homosexuality bends far more towards promiscuity. Further, as I touch on in Part 2, the act itself is uniquely "curved inward," against the body's telos and against nature. So yes, there's a fundamental difference.
Thanks for the reply! I only noticed it now. You're probably right about monogamy, but that seems more a difference in degree than in kind; examples of monogamy do exist in both cases. I was thinking of your discussion of 'curvatus in se' when I wrote my comment. But from your description it seemed that this also had primarily to do with certain attitudes towards sexuality (which of course manifest in the act). And, from what I understood that attitude to be, it seemed that it too exists to varying degrees in both gay and straight men (and, probably to a lesser degree, women). But I might have misconstrued what you take the essence of 'curvatus in se' to be.
Hi Esther. Thank you for these thoughtful essays! It seems to me that the 'sin' you are describing is not in the sexual act per se, but in the culture of promiscuity surrounding it. Would you agree with that characterization? I would say that the attitudes towards sex that you described in the previous essay for example, while they might be especially prevalent among gay men, certainly have their straight counterparts (the narcissistic approach to sex you find in Updike for example doesn't seem so different from the memoirs you quote). On the other hand, there are gay men in committed monogamous relationships, to whom the tendencies you describe do not seem to apply. So I'm left wondering: would you say there is a fundamental difference still?
No, the sin is in the sexual act itself, though monogamy is in fact rara avis even between affectionate gay couples. Of its essence, homosexuality bends far more towards promiscuity. Further, as I touch on in Part 2, the act itself is uniquely "curved inward," against the body's telos and against nature. So yes, there's a fundamental difference.
Thanks for the reply! I only noticed it now. You're probably right about monogamy, but that seems more a difference in degree than in kind; examples of monogamy do exist in both cases. I was thinking of your discussion of 'curvatus in se' when I wrote my comment. But from your description it seemed that this also had primarily to do with certain attitudes towards sexuality (which of course manifest in the act). And, from what I understood that attitude to be, it seemed that it too exists to varying degrees in both gay and straight men (and, probably to a lesser degree, women). But I might have misconstrued what you take the essence of 'curvatus in se' to be.