Am i really wasting space on this

Right now people are pretending that there is a controversy surrounding the Oliver Stone movie Alexander. The controversy of course is Alexander’s sexuality. Some embarrassed Greek men have decided to sue Stone for showing Collin Farrell grant two open mouth kisses to men in the film. Let it sink in … still sinking … they are SUEING because of this! Jesus Christ almighty, everyone KNOWS Alexander did guys, EVERYONE!!! There is not a source in the world that ignored the fact. You see it is quite clear that Alexander liked sex, no doubt about it, and whether it was politics, interest, or even physical attraction it is also known that he had sex with women. Hell, he is probably one of the most powerful people in the recorded history of the world, Alexander would have been able to have sex with anyone he wanted. This entire argument about Alexander is nested in his bisexuality , which is absurd. For one, he was not bi, or straight or gay. Go pick up some Foucault and school yourself in the simple notion that sexual identity categories are a new phenomenon. I have read a lot on the topic of Alexander, and I would argue that Alexander’s greatest love was a male. History books call Hephaistion his best friend and greatest general, though these are both true, Alexander and him, I believe, were intimate lovers. The course of action after Hephaistion’s death is so extreme, that no author can ignore it, and Alexander’s anguish is quite painful to read about.

So what am I trying to do in this rant? Really, nothing at all. I am just boggled that people are making a 2300 year old fact into a controversy. What do I think the bigger controversy is? Alexander was Macedonian, not Greek, so why the fuck do these people care.


2 thoughts on “Am i really wasting space on this

  1. I don’t understand Foucoult, but I do know this. The concept of light that we have today, as something that behaves both as a wave and as a particle, is not a concept that Aristotle had a clue about, nor did Newton. It’s a relatively new concept, but both Aristotle and Newton were familiar with candles and the light from their candles behaved as light today does, sometimes as waves and sometimes as particles, although they did not know it. Their concepts of the phenomenon of light was not sufficient to grasp it’s true nature, but they dealt with light everyday. If they could have been asked whether they knew of anything in their experience that behaved as we now understand light to behave, they probably would have said “no”, because the experiments with light that showed it’s strange nature had not been done in their time. Still, they were dealing with an electromagnetic phenomenon that we now understand as light (in the modern meaning of that word).

    So it is with sexual orientation. Alexander and his people may not have had the concepts of heterosexual and homosexual that we have today. Nevertheless there may have been people in his time who had a (virtually) innate sexual preference for females or males. They would not have been able to talk about it using modern conceptions of sexuality. But if we were able to transport ourselves back in time and witness (unbeknownst to them) their sexual behavior, it might be very obvious to us that some of them fell clearly into our conceptions of hetersexual and homosexual, in the sense that anyone today who behaved similarly would be unambiguously so classified, regardless of how they conceived of themselves.

    The phenomena that language describes is often independent of language itself. Light is such a phenomenon and so is sexual behavior. If a person, when he has an unimpeded choice, almost always chooses male sexual partners, then he is homosexual in the modern sense of the word and it is no abuse of language to say so. It is irrelevant whether he had the concepts to so conceive of himself.

    It is true that one can talk about concepts of sexuality that are more complicated than the one I used for heterosexual and homosexual. One can describe concepts that are partly behavioral and partly conceptual. If you define homosexual as applying to people who have not only certain behaviors but also a certain kind of conception of themselves and their behavior, then clearly people living in times or places that don’t have those concepts will not be homosexual in that sense. That just goes to show that you shouldn’t choose that definition of homosexual if you intend to apply the notion across cultures and times and places.

    One can though come up with a definition that is independent of culture, time and place, just as we have a definition of light that is so independent.

    I don’t claim to understand Foucoult, but I think lots of other people don’t understand him either, because so many people think he was saying that Alexander wasn’t homosexual in the sense that I defined above. Clearly he wasn’t saying that. He was talking about different notions, notions that mix behavior and culture. So lets not use those notions and just stick to the behavioral ones.

    Lets talk about where Alexander fell on the Kinsey scale. I bet he wasn’t in the middle. I bet he was 4-5.

  2. All I know is that Alexander also was about to destroy a Persian king, but was convinced not to because a eunuch named Bagoas, famed as the most beautiful man in the world, was given to Alexander as penance. The Persian king lived, Alexander…er…we’ll say “used”…Bagoas, and everyone was happy. Man, I love Alexander…(except for his bloodthirsty side, which rather reminds me of Ferris…)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s