2021.11.24.gaygerm.d0

From outline written ~Sept 2021 after Sietch Bunker summary via Tantum
These ideas originally took shape incidentally to research from Spring or Summer 2017; check those jm notes or book notes for more

HISTORY OF THE GAY GERM IN EUROPE (Outline + Paraphrase)

14 pp. in ms., outlines for A-D but roughly 8pp. prose for E

Contents

A. The non-candidates
B. Case for germ
C. Ancient history
D. Middle Ages
E. Renaissance and Reformation

/
Greetings, o ZHP I’m typing this for your use, so it includes a number of [italicized parenthetical clarifications] that are mainly for your benefit, when an outline item seemed cryptic or incomplete. You have no doubt noticed that outlines are best when they are short and sweet, and elaboration defeats the purpose, so you may want to delete some of these asides as you read them.

The section headings refer roughly to the answer to the question: “Did homosexuality exist at this time? Did the gay germ spread during this period?” Thus “E”, for which the answer is “yes”, actually extends from 1437 to the modern period.

All precise facts should be checked before use, my workflow is not to verify facts until I put in the references where they can be confirmed by the reader.

Section “A” has sequential §§-numbering as in ms. and and alternative [bracketed] numbering that seemed possibly better for narrative exposition. (I include both for my own future use.)

/

A. The non-candidates

1. [2] Non-existent: genetic homosexuality

⁃ No possible advantage of trait

⁃ No possible case for sexual antagonistic selection or heterozygote advantage

⁃ (e.g.: as feminine sisters or submissive citizens w.r.t. effeminate brothers)

⁃ (No spectrum)‡

2. [3a] Non-existent: learned homosexuality

3. [1b] Differing etiologies: “wrong body”, < 1/1,000

4. [1] Differing etiologies:

⁃ facultative homosexuality (& beastiality, pedophilia, incest, etc)

⁃ hallucinated homosexuality (“ “ “), i.e. w.r.t. altered perceptual states

⁃ cf. child abuse among indigenous alcoholics

5. [3b] Differing etiologies: fetish/obsessive habituation?

⁃ [By analogy to clearly porn-related paraphiliae]

⁃ Lack of spectrum

⁃ “Reality problem”

⁃ [This is specific sub-theory that porn-paraphilae are linked to random authenticity signals, on theory that non-procreative sexual stimuli are quickly interpreted as not-genuine if not followed by coitus and only apparently inadvertent details that seem like by-products of sexual situation rather than attempt to elicit arousal (cf. Benjamin’s “aura”) can disinhibit]

⁃ (Lack of child molestation as correlate)‡

⁃ [I.e. if there is an identifiable small minority of neurological heterosexuals who develop attraction to homosexual stimuli on the same pattern as other pornographic fetishes / paraphilia, they should have measurably different rates of victimization/victimizing.]

6. [4] Differing etiologies: historical

⁃ Island biogeography

⁃ Strong pressure for small population and delayed marriage

⁃ Facultative pederasty (Greek poleis, Melanesia/Polynesia, etc.)

⁃ Full spectrum of paraphiliae (Polynesia)

⁃ [Basic intuition is: small territory > normative small family size over many generations > facultative paraphiliae taught to young to encourage delayed marriage / low fecundity + weak selection for heterosexual sex drive relative to traits that guarantee participation in 2-children-per-pair system.]

⁃ Eunuchs, castrati, priest of Magna Mater

⁃ [Generally forced to become eunuchs unwillingly; in best-attested (Christian) contexts it seems clear eunuchs would pursue romantic relations with women if their social status permitted; likely all eunuch pederasty facultative in nature; likely poorly-attested practices always or almost always matched attested patterns, boys castrated involuntarily and men castrated punitively or to escape debt / low social-status.]

B. Case for germ

1. Twin concordance similar to pneumonia, tuberculous, etc.: to the extent male homosexuality is hereditable the trait in question is immunological

2. pr(molested | gay) , pr(gay | molested)

3. pr(molester | gay) , pr(victims ≥ n | gay & molester)

4. Similarity to cordyception, toxoplasmosis, syphilis; disgust suppression + “recklessness”

⁃ Without a doubt even if there were no gay germ, there would be a “gayerer” germ: i.e., of syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, shigella, amoebiasis, etc., one or more would make “naturally gay” men more reckless, more promiscuous, and in particular suppress disgust reaction. The fact that a “gayerer” germ certainly exists should be factored into one’s priors about existence/mechanism of gay germ.

5. (Mouflon) [Among wild animals only 1 or 2 species exhibit obligate homosexuality, one being the mouflon, ancestor of domestic sheep: strongly suggesting a disease, like toxoplasmosis, that crossed from domesticate to domesticator.]

6. [The rest of theoretical case would summarize Harpending and Cochran]

C. Ancient history

1. Punished, but not a major theme in Old Testament

⁃ [I.e.: roughly on par with bestiality as social problem requiring comment/punishment]

2. Apparently punished by IE tribes (at least Germanic: not Celtic?)

3. Not a major theme of archaic poetry: women are the goal

⁃ [Cf. actual focus of conflict in Iliad vs. anachronistic retconning of Patroclus as a love-interest by later pederasts: original sources make clear Patroclus was older uncle-figure]

⁃ [Iconic conflicts in ancient Sumerian and Hebrew poetry are also over women]

⁃ (exception: Ganymede)

4. More-or-less ritualized pederasty in Classical Greece. Beginning of people noticing:

⁃ Men who are obligate fags

⁃ Men who continue pederastic tie too long

⁃ Men who go too far (sodomy, as opposed to more acceptable intercrural)

⁃ suggests appearance of disgust-suppression mechanism

⁃ Men who enjoy passive role / euryproktos

⁃ Accusations of faggotry (as social insult, political insult, legal means to strip civil rights, practical danger for students / protégés)

5. Rome:

⁃ Never institutionalized pederasty like Greece

⁃ Because earliest poetry/drama apes Greece, impossible to use as document of Early Republic

⁃ Moral scandals reported by Livy all involve girls

⁃ [Like every other civilization with written history]

⁃ [Relative price of slaves? – This is an argument that I’m less sure about, and it’s somewhat icky to spell out the logic of it, but basically at various points (at least in Republic/early Empire, not looking at appropriate notes as I type this) you can find sale prices for male and female slaves of various ages: value of child slaves was very low or zero, value of adult male slaves extremely high, value of adult female slaves lower but converges towards adult price at a lower age, i.e. sexual services may plausible have made up part of the price/demand for female slaves but the demand for male slaves was almost exclusively for physical strength at maturity.]

⁃ It seems possible that chomos were more a rumor than real circa Horace / Lucretius / Cicero

⁃ By era of Martial / Tacitus, both rape of slave boys and pathic faggotry entrenched to some degree

⁃ Banter in Late Republic was “I fucked your sister”, banter in Silver Age is about faggotry. [Regardless of exact prevalence, this shows rising awareness of faggotry as in parallel phase of Greek culture (smoke/fire).]

6. Christian Rome…

⁃ sodomy real/shameful but nowhere near scale of circuses as aspect of Roman culture / entertainment / hedonism

⁃ [This point can be multiplied ad nauseam if desired, to underscore that however faggy Rome was, homosexuality was not perceived as culturally central by its Christian critics, was not a focus of cultural differences between different imperial factions, was not seen as a threat-vector to Christian institutions (as e.g. self-castration was), was not a sin the Fathers ever need to apologize for or describe in their flock.]

D. Middle Ages

1. What is going on in Eastern Empire / Byzantium unclear

⁃ [The rest of §D refers to Latin West.]

2. Accusations of sodomy against Cathars (Kathari) are tied to heterosexual anti-natalism

3. More broadly, those accused of faggotry/pederasty in the Latin Middle Ages were also accused of some combination of bestiality/incest/etc., and got into documented scandals with women. So either it’s slander or they wilin’ out.

⁃ [Thinking specifically of a few of the pre-Lateran popes: WP and Catholic Encyclopedia both keep lists of married popes / popes with children]

⁃ [Also consider Templars]

⁃ [Medieval imprecations against sodomy include it in a bundle of allied sins that tie it to masturbation, intercrural and escalate up to bestiality and incest, so my rough sense was that it was (a) thought of as a very perverse/bizarre thing, (b) to the extent sodomy happened, not necessarily associated with homosexuals let alone obligate homosexuals. But I should re-read: there is a translated medieval source-book with a canonical passage from Peter Damascene.]

4. At time of [Lateran Council], there seems to have been zero concern that celibacy (already observed by monks) was associated with homosexuality. — The rise of “housekeepers” after this council [which instituted mandatory priestly celibacy] also show, even in situations of social deprivation where one might expect facultative homosexuality, it didn’t materialize. There is every reason to think Damascene is talking about hetero hand-stuff [in the dissection of the sinfulness of “sodomy” already alluded to]

5. [Exception: Dante’s “troop of sodomites”. But… does he only name one? — Find out more before forming a final judgment of who (how many) Dante was accusing of doing what, whether accusation is plausible, how ordinary it is, whether this makes Dante a witness to fourteenth-century Florentine sodomy/homosexuality.]

⁃ [Again, cf. Templars as only large group accused of systematic sodomy]

6. We have documentation of very strange laws and fables from this time (for example, Scandinavian horse-sodomy law) so it probably isn’t lack of records [that explains lack of concrete references to homosexuality as an undisputed phenomenon]: however, admittedly unclear when the Roman phenomenon of gay sodomy died out.

E. Renaissance and Reformation

⁃ [Structure of “E”: Introduction, Wrong Answers, Summary of Right Answers, Capsule histories]

1. Thesis: before 1400, there may not have been homosexuality anywhere in the Latin West. By 1500, obligate pederastic homosexuality was entrenched all over Italy but virtually unknown in Northern Europe. Circa 1550-1600 we start to see signs the phenomenon is spreading to France [and …?], and by the eighteenth century it is entrenched in France and present in the general population in England; in the nineteenth century it became a notorious problem in the English upper classes, and in the twentieth it spread wildly in Germany, the United States and pretty much everywhere else.

⁃ [What about Poland? Check to see whether Bernardo Ochino or some other Italian Reformer who went to Poland/Hungary was accused of Sodomy]

2. As a genetic phenomenon [cf. A.1.] this seems strange because it appears so suddenly. As a result of social pressures of urban life (construed either as selection pressure or as pressure to conform) it seems especially strange since it was the areas closest to and most closely tied to Italy that were hit first, not the most urbanized or peaceful ones. So this history corroborates all the other evidence that OPH is a contagious disease, and also indicates if it is a disease when that disease was introduced into Europe.

3. Wrong Answers:

⁃ There would be a strong prima facie case for, perhaps not syphilis itself, but some disease traveling alongside syphilis. Syphilis was apparently introduced from the New World to Spain and Italy after 1492, and it causes a terrible promiscuity that all-too conveniently creates new victims for syphilis to infect. It is likely syphilis or some correlative infectionn was responsible for the notorious promiscuity of sixteenth-century Italians (and their equally notable sterility, which saw several aristocratic houses [Medici, Sforza] fall into the hands of bastards borne by servants and orphan-girls). However, the evidence for pre-1492 OPH is (as we shall see) too strong to treat this as a possibility.

⁃ A disease circulating freely in the relaxed moral conditions of tropical Africa introduced by Portuguese explorers is another possibility. However while the dates for these voyages are earlier than Columbus, they are probably still not quite early enough. The time that elapsed seems insufficient to infect the required number of Italians without frenetic (and noted) chomo activity by Portuguese vector, yet it is long enough to make the absence of any special stereotype of Lisbon circa 1500 slightly disconfirming.

⁃ [Less convincing:] There is the additional problem, in switching the scene of the crime from Spain to Portugal, that Spain’s maritime tradition had always been tied to Catalan shipping, and Catalonia to Occitan and Italy, which is why the idea of Spanish expeditions (mainly out of Cadiz[hm?]) bringing back a disease that first became prominent in Italy is not preposterous: the sailors may have been Catalan or Genovese themselves. Lisbon is not as culturally close to Italy as Barcelona, and so the immaculate infection of Italy via Portugal is a degree less plausible.)

⁃ Another possible vector is the success of the Reconquista. If OPH was never eliminated from the Islamic Middle East, and the Maghreb and Moorish Iberia were exposed to the gay germ through their open commerce with Egypt and points East, it would not be strange if the fourteenth century unification of Iberia and the attendant mingling of Spaniard and Moor introduced certain Middle Eastern epidemics to the West. However, while Granada finally fell much later, the absorption of the Moorish population had already happened [well before 1400]. The match in the timing is not great, and moreover even if it took a century for it too become epidemic in Italy that seems far too long for a population reservoir of OPH in Spain to remain unobserved.

4. Summary of the right answer:

⁃ It is possible that OPH had been establish in the Levant and Anatolia since the classical era, and consequently was endemic inn Byzantium and introduced by priests, scholars and other aristocrats who stayed in Italy after the Council of Florence in 1437 (or fled to Italy at some point between the council and the loss of Constantinople in 1450.) The Byzantine exiles thus would have had 2 or 3 generations of victims before Poliziano’s time, [see below] and given that our contemporary OPH molesters seem to manage seventy (known) victims apiece it seems entirely plausible that a tiny number of Byzantine pederasts, or perhaps only one, could have raped their way across the naive and ingenuous Italian landscape, leaving dozens and then hundreds of future molesters in just a few short decades. The timing works, and the locations works. It is also unambiguously true that certain Byzantine exiles brought with them (besides Greek learning the heritage of neoplatonism) esoteric traditions of a hermetic, pythagorean, necromantic or diabolic nature, obviously impious and heretical yet that had somehow been transmitted in secret from master to disciple in Byzantium, nonetheless, and now very quickly introduced inn Italy to the point their existence was common knowledge among the literati. The analogy suggests at the least that the Byzantine exiles had no problem initiating their Italian hosts to their blasphemous hidden Asiatic customs, and it is not impossible there was an actual cultic aspect to their pederasty as well.

⁃ But I will not insist on this last point: it is merely speculation. What is important is that the Byzantine exiles arrived at the right location (Italy) and at the perfect time (second quarter of the fifteenth century) for obligate pederastic homosexuality to become a historically evident problem in Northern Italy by roughly 1460-1500, without it coming to the attention of other Europeans (or having previously been anywhere near as prevalent, if it had been present at all, in Italy itself).

⁃ While the gay germ could have arrived in Renaissance Europe by numerous means, and it may never be possible to know with exact certainty which is the likeliest, the timing and location of the gay germ’s progress may this the strongest candidate.

5. The life of Angelo Poliziano shows a very strong case for OPH.

6. Other less flagrant cases contemporary to Poliziano and a generation earlier show that he was not an isolated case: so, albeit with less documentation of specifics, we can infer these other men were also OPH and be confident Poliziano was.

⁃ [Somewhat complicated reasoning because in the nature of things the first unambiguously evidenced case of a viral phenomenon should not be the actual case (probabilistic reasoning); the fact that there are well-documented cases post-1480 and the fact that there are less-well-documented cases from 1-2 decades earlier are mutually corroborating of both presence of viral vector and timing of its introduction.]

7. However there is barely any evidence of equal weight (never mind frequency/prevalence) for OPH in period 1100-1400 AD.

8. Overwhelming majority of medieval mentions of priests and monks imply their moral problems and temptations involve women. This is still true of Erasmus circa 1500: read his Dialogues/Colloquies; he is absolutely brutal in his portrayal of the clergy, he seems to seriously warm that girls allowed to become nuns will be raped continuously from the moment they have made their vows, but he does not accuse them of homosexuality. Nor am I aware of the partisans of Wycliff or Hus ever making this accusation. The Reformation polemics are immeasurably and immensely filthy in their particulars, enough so that I have to believe some Reformer must have accused his opponents of sodomy or pederasty, but if he did I am not aware of it. Homosexuality was not among Luther’s complaints about the priesthood or the monasteries, it does not figure in his biographical recollections, and it does not feature inn his case for clerical matrimony. Luther and his allies do not even seem to be aware of the rumors then current in Rome about living and quattrocento homosexuals in the Church hierarchy. It is simply not on their radar; compare it to the amount of attention bigamy and other peripheral issues received; the Reformers probably were not aware obligate homosexual attraction existed. This suggests OPH did not yet exist in France, Germany and England circa 11500-1540, so the gay germ had not yet spread so far.

9. Some young men were beheaded for homosex in Calvin’s Geneva.

10. Francis Bacon’s brother Anthony, after education and then an intelligence career in France and Switzerland, was forced to flee back to England after sodomizing a page. This suggests that by the 1570s or ’80s the gay germ was spreading through francophone regions and had been introduced to London.

⁃ (I would still suggest rumors about e.g. James I and VI and Buckingham are merely salacious — particularly the implication James I permitted the relation to be recreated with his own son. Lots of sixteenth century and early seventeenth century behavior that sounds like obvious foreplay in our wretched sinful century seemed at least colorably innocent to contemporaries: read about the games Princess Elizabeth would play with her guardian, for example — whatever they were doing was close enough to outercourse for her sister to disapprove strongly, but Elizabeth’s guardian and his wife were both present at the time and the door was open for servants to enter, so clearly it seemed innocent to them.)

11. Seventeenth century less clear overall, but what is clear is that by the beginning of the eighteenth century homosexuality was common enough [in France!] to have become a standard part of anticlerical discourse. This does not mean there were many gay priests or even any particularly bad gay priests at that time, but it must at a minimum mean it was a common enough problem in middle-class and noble society for the charge to seem meaningful. [Compare its absence from the polemics of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, noted above.] In England during the same period [18th c.] there were religious disagreements but no trope of clerical homosexuality, despite the fact that sodomitical attacks on apprentices (and hangings for some) gradually became more common.

⁃ [This is not strong evidence either way, but there is a weak case to be made that 18th c England where the judicial records are accurate preserves evidence of a situation similar to what had happened in France a century earlier; then roughly 100 years after the gay germ starts percolating through the guild system, OPH takes on a symbolic significance (e.g. depraved abuse of authority) in literary culture.]

12. Sade seems to be a remarkable and essentially uniquely frank witness to French libertine culture and its tropes. He was not an OPH himself [Sade’s indiscretions and crimes involved women], but nonetheless appears to recognize the OPH as a symbolic ideal, a living embodiment of ritualized libertinism. Notable details include those with early initiation into libertinism and sodomy losing interest in women by adulthood, permanent suppression of disgust-reflexes (possibly involving actual loss of smell, as in toxoplasmosis) that inhibit fecal copulation, and a background assumption that the means necessary to “convince” a suitable target will include both grooming and rape, combined with the expectation that after repeated rape the target will become pliant and develop an interest in raping a new victims. These may very well be the delusions of a depraved mind, but they also sound exactly like the symptoms of OPH induced by a gay germ to facilitate infection of new victim [and not at all like any interaction, even a very inappropriate and coercive one, between a man and a woman]; if there was a community of obligate pederastic homosexuals in eighteenth century France, the common wisdom they shared amongst themselves as the fruit of long experience with the tactics of grooming and rape would have sounded exactly like this, and it would be no surprise if that sociopathic common wisdom was then adopted as the performative ideology of all French libertines, with the pederasts at their core.

⁃ [Notes on Sade section]

⁃ [N.B. “libertin” has a socio-cultural meaning, it’s a sort of movement in 17th c through the mid-18th c France. Relatively intellectual at first, went through a standard progression of interests for such movements: science to atheism to hedonism to sodomy.]

⁃ [Many of these details of Sade’s work/ideals are taken from Philosophie dans le boudoir, particularly long sections in the middle of the second half (roughly) where Dolmancé is delivering his lengthy evil villain monologues. Any more typological observations about his other works can be corroborated from a superficial reading of 120 jours. I don’t remember where I got his biography, likely in the front-matter of one of his books.]

13. English boarding schools had existed for some time by 1815, apparently without special problems. After their perceived contribution to the ethos of the officer corps who broke Napoleon, everyone (in the aristocracy) sent their sons to boarding school. This shift was not popular with mothers at the time, apparently, because the boys missed their families and the rules were strict; but there was no whisper at the time that the boys were in danger from pederasts. There were, however, pederasts teaching somewhere in this system, and they molested a sufficient number of boys that soon adult pederasts were a minor problem compared to older students sodomizing their juniors. I think it would be fair to say this process was well underway by 1860 (45 years after Waterloo), at which time university classicists could start to discreetly discuss ancient Greek pederasty with faux-neutrality. By 1900 it was quite a severe problem and it is fair to say that since then the whole world has gone gay.

14. The exact timing of the rise of pedophilia in America, Germany and elsewhere is harder to fix.

⁃ There are some suspicious cases of dead or disappearing young boys in nineteenth century America, but it was obviously not even yet at the level of eighteenth century England.

⁃ There was a notorious pederastic serial killer in California in [the 1930s] who however molested dozens more boys than the twenty he killed, and it is not impossible he single-handedly jump-started California’s gay culture.

⁃ [More broadly there is a case to be made that when OPH is first introduced into a virgin population with no immunological or behavioral resistance to the gay germ, the first infected pederasts have a relatively easy time finding victims to rape and a relatively difficult time figuring out ways to hide their tracks other than murdering the victim; so clusters of unsolved murders/disappearances, especially of young boys, is a potential fingerprint even when the identity of the OPH is unknown and the sexual nature of the murders is circumstantial. However, I consider this wholly a tangent from the basic theory: obviously it is not part of the argument for the reality of the gay germ to go further and claim it explains the advent of serial murder as well.]

15. [I make no claim about the historical prevalence of OPH in the Black, Jewish, or East Asian populations. These are all groups with notably elevated rates of OPH today, but they could be subsequent to the progress of the gay germ through the West.]

⁃ Purely as unsystematic last-minute speculation, laying out kinds of hypotheses you could look for:

⁃ As part of the exotic introduction hypothesis I had originally considered the possibility jews or blacks were original bearers of virus (from Middle Eastern source or African source respectively). Blacks don’t fit US pattern (OPH wasn’t a serious problem in the South before it arrived in North), so my assumption is that their high rates of OPH postdate Great Migration and breakdown of black families. For Jews I couldn’t see any evidence that their high rates of OPH were more associated with Sephardim (involved in Mediterranean trade routes) than Ashkenazim (not involved).

⁃ Furthermore there is a lurking question about whether high rates of OPH or any infectious disease in a population indicates that they are a historical reservoir of that disease, or that they are a historical naive population whose high rate of infection is evidence of defenselessness.

⁃ The level of homosex in China seems to be similar to Korea and Japan; unless the prevalence of the different etiologies of homosexuality are completely different in E. Asia this is an argument against recent introduction of gay germ from West, because Korea and Japan were both under American occupation for 10+ years and would have had more time for OPH to spread. However the prevalence and character of homosex in Japan seems to have changed drastically after American occupation, so who knows.

⁃ While the amount of OPH sex tourism to SE Asia in the late 19th/early 20th c was clearly driven by spike in Anglo-French OPH, the cultural attitudes that Western OPHs record in SE Asia (apparently analogous in Vietnam and Thailand…?) suggest the Westerners were surprised at the casualness with which the Asians treated homosex. All else equal this seems more likely to be evidence OPH had deeper roots there than the West than the opposite.

⁃ If OPH is historically deeply rooted in E. Asia we might expect to find that OPH is a standard anti-clerical trope in communist propaganda (but I am not aware of this being the case).

⁃ On the whole I tend to guess OPH rips through jews rapidly after de-ghettoization because of cultural predisposition to tolerance/sheltering of illicit behavior; tends to rip through blacks because immunologically naive and r-selected parental strategies leave children vulnerable; possibly E. Asian rates in Western countries are an artifact of neoteny affecting victim selection by adult OPHs; gay germ has likely been endemic in belt from Levant to subcontinent for a long time but either failed to penetrate S.E./E. Asia, or penetrated S.E./E. Asia so long ago that there has been co-adaptation how germ’s behavioral influence is expressed (no strong case for this, just loosely trying to piece together the facts).

⁃ It would be very convenient if Asia (and Africa) had as precise/accessible (to me) records confirming or refuting presence and social weight of homosex/OPH across time: absent in this century, present in this century, therefore introduced in that century. However while I th

 

[TRANSMISSION TERMINATED]