“Men don’t have ideas, ideas have men. And which ideas have you?” – Carl Jung
So here’s a question. Why Homo “Sexual“? Why does that idea have so many men? As if under a spell of some kind.
Homo Erectus in contrast was named so because that kind of human walked upright compared to other types identified in the catalogue of human development. However, it wasn’t his social identity just as much as a cow doesn’t identify as vegan or a loin as carnivorous. It was an actual physical feature.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to blur the lines between the scientific definition of a species here. But isn’t it strange that, firstly, there is a need to be part of a group distinguished by a name in that genre of classifications? Secondly, to have self-classified. And thirdly, that it is sexual taste that defines membership.
But going back to Homo Erectus again, we look back at that branch of humanity in an examinary light and judge it according to our view of how evolution progressed over time. In that sense, how will “Homo Sexual” be judged 1,000 years from now? That strange, rainbow worshiping, short lived social experiment where who you want to screw was the distinguishing feature of an entire human group.
Will it be seen as the stage of humanity that drove us upward and forward towards the ideal? Or one that corrupted and ruined large sections of the populace leaving a trail of disappointed fathers and truncated family lines in its wake? Will its claim of “progress” be seen as such, or as a psychosis which gripped the European mind as the rest of the world looked on in confusion.
So why is that actually an identity? Why not, like the lion, it’s just an animal that eats meat. It’s not a “carnivore” lion. It’s not a keto lion, or an Atkins lion. Just a lion, being a lion. Not a Homo Sexual, just a Homo Sapiens that likes screwing blokes. Sure, I get it, they had to fight for their rights to screw who they wanted etc. But that still doesn’t explain the whole social identity “It’s Who and What I Am” aspect.
If you want an identity based on a human social development, one based on what you do, then why not “Homo Virtuoso” instead? We have a shortage of virtuous men, as is evident by the sheer scale of corruption in our government and economy.
Why not Homo Techne? There are plenty of problems to be solved. World hunger, poverty, disease, pollution in the oceans from the Asian and African continents. All of these things are in need of men who dedicate their lives to their skill and craft. Men who find an identity in conquering nature and inching us further along the evolutionary path towards greatness. How would that identity be judged in 1,000 years in comparison to the sexual one that spent his time occupied by… or occupying… other men.
How about Homo Sophos? There are plenty of questions to be answered. Deep meaningful questions about the very nature of Being and of Life itself. What is life after all. Where does it begin, how, why, and what should the answers to those questions mean for society? Surely that’s a more worthy aim in life and something a person would be proud to seen associated with by our descendants. There wouldn’t even be a need for overt public displays of “Pride” with such an identity. The pride would be in the work itself. Unspoken and subtle, the way pride should be felt.
Pride and esteem would be granted to you by others instead of self identifying with it like some scramble in a dark nihilistic existence for meaning.
Or, if one is not skilled or cursed with a philosophical mind, why not Homo Philia? Why aren’t we all truly brothers anyway? Why the differences. Shouldn’t that be an aim? To unite all in brotherhood? Or Homo Storge (Familial Love). Why is the family something to aim away from these days? Why is it seemingly no longer the foundation of all we are. For what is in identity without such a foundation. What is an I without the context of a we? Isn’t the family the foundation of personhood?
Or why not Homo Agape? (Universal Love)
Or Homo Pragma? (Pragmatic Love)
Or Homo Alethea? (Truth)
Or Homo Kleos? (Honour)
The list is long, and each possible other option only adds another why to the question about the sexual aspect being the one chosen instead.
Why, instead of all of those options, is it instead the Sexual, profane, short term, pleasure focused and epicurean that is chosen? And chosen it is. It seems sleazy, shameful and lacking in virtue. Lazy too, to ignore so many other paths.
Homo Lethe, named after a river in Hades who’s waters the dead would drink in order to forget their earthly life, means “Humans of Oblivion”. It seems more suitable in a way, seeing as the future beyond one’s own personal existence as a member of this tribe is either completely ignored, totally disregarded or has never even been considered.
If you haven’t dedicated your life to virtue, skill, truth or honour, and have not reproduced (which the vast, vast majority of homo sexuals do not do), then did you even ever really exist at all?
Seriously. Why exist at all. To experience The Now? (Insert Eyeroll Emoji here)
Why are things like the above list not marketed, promoted and pushed with our children? Wouldn’t the world be much better if it was.
The active promotion of and drive towards “Homo Sexual” as a future social evolution of man needs to be called out for what it is, and those pushing it as an agenda through the media, schools and workplaces need to be questioned aggressively.
Why this? Why not something else? Why are you not teaching our children to pursue truth, justice, love or a skill?
The end result of each of the choices above is a drastically different place compared to the sexual one. Some lead to a future that can at least be imagined, and successful or not, definitely looked back upon by future generations in some regard. The one being pursued however, leads to oblivion. At least for the individuals involved in it, and we’d prefer not to be dragged down to the depths of hell with them.
Any feedback or opinions are welcome below in the comments or in the relevant forum section.