Shakespeare Denied

One interesting fact about Shakespeare - whoever he may have been - is that most scholars refuse to address his overt homosexuality, which is evinced in the Sonnets, and threaded throughout his plays. This effort to avoid any reference to his polysexuality says much about the inherently homophobic and conservative nature of these Shakespearean enclaves.

Top or bottom? Ancients versus Moderns

The argument that a man into a homosexual relationship must be the top because he’s an active male in a heterosexual relationship can be turned on its head. Perhaps he craves being topped by another man because he doesn’t get that with his wife or girlfriend. One can have relationships with women until he falls with another man who is a stallion. The unavoidable implication of that argument is, however, that 'a real man' should always put an effort in a relationship. The superiority is based not on class but on merit. Compare this with the view of a well-respected free Roman citizen of the I century A.D.  - though  the Romans didn’t have a concept of heterosexuality or homosexuality:

aut si de multis nullus placet exitus, illud

nonnne putas melius, quod tecum pusio dormit?

pusio qui noctu non litigat, exigit a te

nulla iacens illic munuscula nec queritur quod

et lateri parcas nec quantum iussit anheles (Juvenal, VI, .

If none of these exits (different manners of killing oneself as a way of escaping insatiable women) pleases you
wouldn't a lad suit you better? a lad who would share your bed?
who wouldn't wrangle all night, wouldn't ask
little gifts when in bed, and would not complain
that your hips remained idle, that you didn't breath hard as he ordered.  
 

More on Italian public bigotry perpetuation

The public outrage sparked by the first all-male kiss aired on one of the RAI channels was in the air. “The country is not ready!” The convenient, neck-saving thing for the bigots to say and their main axiom once again were the same.

Self preservation is what is at stake here. Bigots have only one goal in mind: produce their shit as long as possible and prosper on it. At the expense of everything else. Like Beelzebub they aren’t megalomaniacal as much as manipulative and amoral, but unlike him they do most everything without any great deal of understatement or humor, and consider the territorial and political ‘agenda’ to be just that which is required by pure hatrage. They represent something of a middle ground between statics and dynamics. They can only be analyzed with the help of a formal dichotomy. There is no drug that can tamp down their hallucinations and delusions. They belong to psichiatry, and one should never interfere with psychiatry when only psichiatry has the answer.

The Italian way of contracting an STD

Italian politics is a television show not to be taken seriously. And the acting is way too bad. I take it as a documentary on foulness. That the show takes liberties by skipping over a detail seems to me more of a mountain than a mole hill. The problem is that one will have to change or tune if after skipping such details, the show turns around and makes a big deal of it by having the entire country contract an STD (read homosexuality) after watching the first all-male kiss screened by the public-service broadcaster in its 60-year history.