Which New Testament city was known for worshipping Artemis?

Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Eve Tushnet

Home
Catholic
Religious Music & Entertainment

Last updated on: May 25, 2004 at 9:04 pm by Eve Tushnet

2004-05-25T21:04:00-04:00 Eve Tushnet

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

BEHIND THE CRICKET PAVILION AND THE BICYCLE SHEDS: I’d like to thank everyone who has offered commentary (whether critical, complimentary, or both) on my “Not Exactly Natural” post below. Here I will ramble through my thoughts on the various replies. This post will be both unusually theoretical and extraordinarily disorganized, because a) I don’t have time to organize it and b) I’m still trying to figure out what I think of all this. So, forewarned is half an octopus. Let’s go.

RASHOMONOLOGUE. In any life there are many possible narratives that could make sense of that life. The memories we dwell on are easier to remember; consequently they play a greater role in shaping our later lives; and so we assign them importance, in retrospect, that they perhaps did not hold at the time we experienced them. We build our selves through the stories we tell ourselves.

And so I think it is a perfectly valid question to ask why I choose to tell myself this story, the queer story, rather than other possible stories. Why not present my early sense of alienation as the alienation of a smart girl, or a lonely girl with a temper? Why Richard Ellmann’s biography of Oscar Wilde, rather than Frances Hodgson Burnett’s Secret Garden? And really, why think about it at all, rather than Moving On?

Well… I can think of a few reasons.

First, most obviously and least interestingly, I chose all those florid metaphors of rhyming and lockpicking in the prior post for a reason. I read all kinds of stuff about other specific forms of alienation that I could also be said to share–but I only read those books once. (Well, I exaggerate. I never read anything once. But I didn’t return to them quite as obsessively.) I really couldn’t trouble myself to care too much about, or sit up nights thinking on, Meg Murry or whoever. (I don’t even rightly know who the relevant characters would be.) Whereas Dorothy Allison, Derek Jarman, even pop junk like Genet, all seemed handcrafted just for me, and I paid out countless hours obsessively turning their works over and over in my mind.

Then, too, the initial post (like the “mask of command” post) was prompted by thinking about my writing. I’ve been thinking a lot about the ways in which the specifically queer alienation has shaped the way I write–the things I notice, the themes I return to, the ways I talk around subjects. I don’t know that I can articulate any of the effects especially well. I haven’t figured a lot of it out yet. But I do know the influence is strong and lasting. And working out some of these effects (e.g. the ways in which I notice and respond to sensual detail, or the kinds of suspicion that come easily to me) has helped me understand my characters and sharpen my writing instincts.

And finally, all cultures, I suspect, idealize and prettify some forms of sin. But they pick different sins for different reasons. It’s worth exploring what SSA, in this culture at this time, feels like, in order to better understand a) the culture itself–why has it picked “homosexuality” to value? why has it taken these experiences and slapped this label on them?, and b) SSA itself–what about these experiences made them fodder for a political and cultural movement at this time and in this place? I don’t see this as especially different from trying to figure out what the courtly tradition of idealizing adultery tells us about medieval courts, about eros, and about marriage and adultery.

DOUBLE ENTENDRE. It’s also true that “homosexuality”/same-sex attraction/queerness serves as a code for other and deeper alienations. I think this is true of virtually everyone with a strong and early history of SSA. You come across the same scene over and over in the autobiographies (including, I note for the polemically inclined, Jonathan Rauch’s [in Gay Marriage] and Andrew Sullivan’s): Before there was any sense of sexual difference, there was a dug-in, abiding sense of exile, of aloneness, of having been cut off from some needed love. Rauch, Sullivan, and I later ended up linking this sense to our sexual and romantic attractions. I suspect that there is some reason for that–this was not merely a random coincidence on our parts. I also suspect that although this linkage was encouraged by our cultural context (including in the ways that culture tried to discourage and denigrate homosexuality), it was not as if culture was somehow imposing homosexual attractions that weren’t there.

But the sense of exile comes first. When I was little I had all these little knickknacks, china cats and clay unicorns and so forth, who lived on the top of my dresser drawer. They had their own village. One of them, a pale, yellowish plastic soldier, always stood at the very edge of the dresser, facing away from the village; for something he’d done (I think his crime changed now and then as I forgot what it was supposed to have been), he was never allowed to return to his hometown or even look back at it. (Yes, I read The Man Without a Country at an impressionable age, why do you ask?) He could only come home when a delegation from the village came out to retrieve and redeem him.

I hope it is obvious how this small plastic soldier relates to my willingness to believe in the Fall of Man. I hope it is at least becoming somewhat clearer how my “queer story” made it easier for me to understand that Christianity was true, that the world described by my Catholic friends (and by St. Anselm) is the world I knew. I was, of course, very resistant to a God Who told me I couldn’t do whatever I wanted to do; but I had always this reminder that I didn’t really trust my wants, and that I knew something had gone wrong. I began to suspect that the queer alienation could not be explained away as the results of “homophobia.”

So yes, homosexuality often serves as code or stand-in for other exiles. But it isn’t only that; it’s also itself. Even when it starts entirely as code (if it ever does), eventually the mask sinks into the skin.

WHATEVER YOU SAY, SAY NOTHING. El Camino Real has a response to my post with which I must say I can’t agree. Stuff in bold is ECR, stuff in plain text is me: “…But I’m beginning to think that, in the context of day-to-day living, it is a mistake to self-identify as someone with same-sex attractions.”

I would have a better sense of whether I agree with this if I knew whether we were using “identify” in the same way. I think of myself as a journalist. Also as a writer. Also as someone with a very vicious temper that needs to be checked. And also as bisexual. All of these are “identities” in very different ways, though. If I didn’t think of myself as someone with Wrath Issues, I suspect I’d be a lot worse about actually controlling my temper. Thinking about myself as “someone with same-sex attractions” isn’t like thinking about myself as a journalist (since it’s obviously a temptation to sin, whereas journalism is only a near occasion of sin!), nor is it like thinking about myself as someone with a violent temper (because queerness has shaped my life much more than anger has).

I don’t believe anyone should think of himself as essentially characterized by sin or tendency to sin. But I talk about things all the time that aren’t part of my “essential” identity (which would be what, really, other than “child of God”?).

More: “There are two primary reasons for this. First, homosexuality is not something that normal people should be thinking about on a regular basis one way or the other. It is especially not something children should be thinking about. It follows that forcing other people to confront one’s personal sexual disorders is probably not the most charitable way of interacting with them.”

Really, what is one to say to that? I am sorry that by writing a weblog I have forced y’all to confront my personal sexual disorder. (And is it worse for “normal people”–which are who, exactly? Which sins count as “normal” sins?–to think about other sins that don’t attract them? Should angry people never write about their tempers, since calm people might be reading?)

“Second, as has been discussed before in these pages, knowledge of homosexual temptations is a serious impediment to same-sex friendships. By self-identifying as someone with SSA, a person is severely limiting prospects for friendship with heterosexuals. Deep and lasting friendships do not require that one ever discuss what is best reserved to the confessional.”

I assume ECR is saying that widespread discussion of same-sex attraction makes it more likely that people with some minor degree of it would begin to notice that attraction and reinforce it. That’s almost indisputably true. But I wonder if he realizes that he’s ceding the entire cultural battleground to people with a radically false view of SSA. If the only people who get to talk about it are people who think it’s just dandy… isn’t that much more likely to lead to a reinforcement of SSA?

I’ll also note that I can’t really imagine a deep and lasting friendship in which matters for the confessional were never discussed. This rule would also preclude publication of e.g. St. Augustine’s and Dorothy Day’s autobiographies… not that I’m, you know, comparing myself to them! But still.

I think I have fewer problems with his last paragraph, so I won’t bother quoting it; you can of course find it here.

SHADOWS ON THE CAVE WALL: Finally, as the last tangle of yarn in this disorganized post, I should note an interesting issue that one of my readers brought up. He writes, “Is it possible that [pretty girls in their summer dresses] are just objectively beautiful, like a great painting, capable of being marveled at by persons of either sex? Of course you could claim that you react to them the same way a man would — but (a bit of throat-clearing here, not meant to be patronizing but probably coming off that way — sorry!) how could you know what that is, at the level of particularity necessary to make this a life-defining claim? I had male friendships sufficiently intense and exclusive that outsiders called us ‘gay’; we didn’t care, because we knew we weren’t, and we knew we weren’t because we knew our relationship, though emotionally intense (I’m talking age 13, 14 here), was not at all oriented toward guy-on-guy sexual expression. I totally join you in deploring the way ‘”real love” in this formulation is always sexual’ — but if a same-sex friendship is emotionally intense yet non-sexual, do people who experience them need to think of themselves as homosexual?”

There are a couple different issues here, but they all center on the question of how you know whether an attraction is sexual or not. There are, as he says, emotionally intense same-sex friendships that aren’t sexual–and some that are rightly characterized as “romantic” but not sexual. Intense, jealous, inseparable, prone to folie a deux, yearning, obsessive–all that good stuff–but not always, necessarily, sexual. Plus, as he rightly notes, girls = pretty! So how do you know that what you are experiencing is what is called “same-sex attraction,” rather than intense friendship or aesthetic appreciation?

This strikes me as basically a philosophy-of-language question. We learn what words like “sexual” and “romantic” and “lesbian” and “desire” mean through culture, through literature, through the entire complex matrix of language. Is what I feel like when I see the girls walk by dressed in their summer clothes “the same” thing a man feels? Well, first off, which man? I think there are some guys, and some male authors, who have described similar feelings in ways that sound like descriptions of my experience; and others whose descriptions strike me as “interesting, but that’s not really how it is for me.” In my own fiction, as far as romantic life goes, I think I’m slightly more like Peter Ware (“Getting Fired”) than like Charles (“Judge Me, O God”)–but then, I’m not much like Laila or Suha (“Desire”) either.

But as to the phil.-of-lang. question, I can only know what name to call my experiences the same way everyone else does. How do “straight” men tell the difference between women who are “good-looking, but not my thing” and women to whom they’re attracted? How do people in general tell the difference between philia and eros? Well, we talk to other people, and we read books and listen to songs, and we discern the meaning of words. I don’t see that this process would be radically different for same-sex attractions.

CAULDRON OF ILLICIT LOVES: And now to your email. I’m just posting excerpts, which is why these will seem kind of choppy. Nothing that follows was written by me (except some brief stuff in brackets).

Reader #1: What gripped me was that [the initial post] resonated with my own high school experience — of being a CONSERVATIVE: the sense of isolation, pride tempered by apprehension of others’ reactions, and those Quentin-Crispian moments when you meet Another One….

From this phenemenon of isolation-plus-elite-recognition comes — you saw this a mile away — hardening of identity. Being a conservative becomes what one lives, breathes, is. Maybe this is why, as [mutual friend] once said, “the two groups most given to imitating their own stereotypes are conservatives and gays.” Thank God that Catholicism came along to provide me with an alternative platform from which I can judge conservatism itself.

Reader #2 notes the standard gay-activism contradiction: Invariably [my friend] would either say that his being gay was such an inconsequential part of his life that I shouldn’t care about it either way or that, conversely, his homosexuality was such a huge and intrinsic part of his nature that to hate it was to hate him.

Reader #3: What about people who don’t identify as “queer” but all the same do have sexual relationships with their own sex? I’ve known quite a few people like this–usually women. A one-time co-worker had many love affairs with women but resolutely insisted she was heterosexual. In fact, she never quite confessed to me, though she hinted. I heard it from one of her female lovers.

Do you think that any of this might have to do with the difference between male and female homosexuals, or even the difference between men and women? Camille Paglia thinks that male homosexuality may be the result of, not a gay gene, but an artistic gene. Masculinity is eroticized by artistic boys as they yearn for male acceptance. (Rejection by fathers doesn’t have to be part of this scenario, although

it often is.)

There is a very good piece on men, male violence, and the need for fathers, in an old edition of First Things. It’s by David Gutmann. Perhaps you know it already? Although it’s not directly concerned with homosexuality, it led me to think about the problem of the Absent Father and the sexual and emotional confusion it causes in men, and to a lesser degree in women.

[Eve says: Fascinating stuff. One quick comment: I suspect the homosexuality/artistry connection may work both ways, as sexual difference prompts heightened awareness of personal interactions and heightened introspection and fantasy life.]

Uncategorized

Previous Post

May 25, 2004

Next Post

May 26, 2004

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Art Best-Of Gay Catholic Whatnot Mackerel-Snapping self-obsessed Too much is never enough Uncategorized

Select a Month November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 August 2022 July 2022 May 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 November 2002 October 2002 September 2002 August 2002 July 2002 June 2002 May 2002 April 2002 March 2002 February 2002 January 2002

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Which New Testament city was known for worshipping Artemis?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Corinth Rome Ephesus Athens