#pederasty

Oh no, the boy is growing up and ceasing to be sexually appealing!

Sufjan Stevens has a song called John Wayne Gayce Jr.

i have a friend who loves to first ask men "whats your sports idol?" followed by "if you had to have sex with him, would you be top or bottom?" and it's always fun to see the straight male mind revert back to it's greek pederastic roots bc they almost always answer "bottom, obviously" bc they respect the guy too much to top them. it's about power to them

If, for [Gayle] Rubin, both intergenerational sex and BDSM are crucial sites of struggle against the persecution of sexual minorities and, for Foucault, both pederasty and BDSM are critical practices through which to think the ethics of power in asymmetrical and “diagonal” social relations, it is instructive that only BDSM has been taken up, within queer theory, for the potentially radical ways in which it negotiates power, gender, and history in and through sex. There is, nonetheless, an inscription of pederasty within BDSM that we might bring into focus in order to disaggregate what we think we know about queer sex radicalism in the present; namely, Daddy/Boy play. If it seems counterintuitive to connect Daddy/Boy play to pederasty, it is because since the 1980s, Daddy/Boy has been embraced as part of a sex radical queer culture and rendered synonymous with the “now.” By contrast, pederasty is more likely to be associated with homosexual self-­loathing than with contemporary sex radicalism and is assimilated to the “then” of a vaguely defined pre-Stonewall history and the “there” of an equally vaguely defined Arab-­Islamic culture. With their presumably antagonistic politics and alleged locations in distant time periods and geographical spaces, it seems certain that pederasty and Daddy/Boy will never meet. One might protest, however, that there are significant formal differences between pederasty and Daddy/Boy. As elaborated within BDSM cultures, Daddy/Boy is a contractual means of playing with both intergenerational power differentials and the incest taboo to create erotic scenarios with a particularly intense sexual and affective charge. These power differentials, however, need not be based on real world differences in social power. In other words, the “boy” need not be literally younger than the “Daddy,” neither need be male, and the “Daddy” need not have greater social, economic, or racial capital than the “boy.” Pederasty, on the other hand, would appear unseemly in its exuberant attachment to the scene of social power, uncritically adopting its patriarchal homoerotics of hierarchy between men and youths or older and younger men, and even intensifying it with inequalities of race, class, and geopolitical power. As a form that is not associated with kinship, pederasty, moreover, appears to be distant from both the incest taboo’s erotic charge and Daddy/Boy’s self-­conscious manipulation of that charge. In short, if BDSM play, including Daddy/Boy, has been understood within queer theory as a distinctively queer method of responsibly, consensually, and self-­consciously playing with social power, assuming pleasurable agency over sexual trauma, exploring new female, genderqueer, and transgender masculinities, and challenging “the racial and gendered hierarchies that undergird the disciplinary paternalism of the state,” pederasty would appear, uninterestingly, to do none of the above. What does it mean, then, that a “modernized” and recognizably queer pederasty might take the shape of a contractual Daddy/Boy BDSM relation, in which the Daddy really is old enough to be the Boy’s father and really does provide material support and pedagogical instruction, and the Boy really is dependent, in various psychic, emotional, and material ways, upon the Daddy? If Daddy/Boy play can come so vertiginously close to reality, then the time has come to interrogate the valorizing and modernizing separation between retrograde pederasty and queer radical Daddy/Boy by theorizing both as inegalitarian erotic dependencies that cannot be adequately held within the liberal form of contractual consent.

considering all the ancient deities, there definitely could have been some pederasty going on in pjo