Greg Milliken

Moderation and the Greeks

1-14-2008

Reading the Agoge post has inspired me to think about the concept of moderation and what it must have meant to the Ancient Greeks. Today moderation seems to be defined by having a medium sized fries with your meal instead of a large. I've heard people declare also that moderation is defined by the extremes. I doubt that either of these definitions are what the Ancient Greeks had in mind with the phrase, "Moderation in all things."

For example, by the first definition moderation in all things means "do a little bit of everything." Yet from my understanding of Greek culture that wasn't a philosophy they followed. For example, in their same-sex relationships they didn't try a little oral, a little frot, and a little anal. They were primarily and almost exclusively frot men. Also, they didn't do a little military training and a little domestic housekeeping, the men did manly things and the rest was left to servants.

As far as the second definition, I think it is a direct example of the double speak termed by George Orwell. How can moderation and extremism have anything to do with each other? Moderation is not defined by extremes, it is the point at which no extremes are being enacted. How would it affect the Alliance if the second definition were accurate:

Machoism → Gender Roles ← Effeminacy

We know that machoism and effeminacy can't define Masculinity. Machoism is about domination and superficial acts of outward aggression. Macho men have no use for masculine men who are willing to stand up for ourselves and fight back when others try to dominate us. Macho men require effeminate partners: those who are willing to be dominated and portray superficial acts of outward timidity. The "moderation" between machoism and effeminacy is the creation of temporary gender roles. For example, it would be "moderation" to sometimes act macho and other times act effeminate, by the definition provided. Yet true moderation is Masculinity, because masculinity provides a balance between machoism and effeminacy. Without masculinity, everyone is either dominated or dominating, or in other words everyone is acting in the extreme. If everyone is acting in the extreme then there is no moderation. Only Masculinity can provide a balance point where neither subjugation nor domination is occurring.

Promiscuity → Selective Promiscuity ← Abstinence

Likewise, neither promiscuity nor abstinence leave any room for Fidelity. Promiscuity is about having sex with anyone who will, and abstinence is about having sex with no one. Fidelity is about having sex with (and to a broader extent, being committed to) one person. As you can see neither promiscuity, nor abstinence, leaves any room for Fidelity, so in between promiscuity and abstinence lies selective promiscuity, where one has sex based on a certain arbitrary criteria (does this person look a certain way, have I had too much sex this month, will I get something out of it, etc.) Selective promiscuity is literally where promiscuity and abstinence intersect:

Group A I will have sex with any of them + Group B I will have sex with none of them = moderation between promiscuity and abstinence.

So as you can see, yet again the extremes fail to define moderation (the absence of any extreme.)

Analism → The modern conceptualization of bisexuality ← Heterosexism

Analism, or the belief that anal is a necessary part of one's sex life, is directly opposed by heterosexism, or the belief that only heterosexual (and vaginal) intercourse should be practiced. How can either of these result in true moderation: frot? They can't. Anal "sex" has nothing to do with frot. Vaginal sex has nothing to do with frot. If we were to practice moderation as defined by these two extremes, we would arrive at the modern conceptualization of bisexuality: a guy with a girlfriend who bangs guys in the ass on the DL (down low).

So we can see (quite clearly) that extremism has absolutely nothing to do with moderation, and moderation, as the Ancient Greeks practiced it, was about eliminating extremes, not following them selectively.

I suppose it's possible to draw up another graph to sum up the entire battle of the frot movement. On one end is the word "Extremism", with an arrow leading to another word, "Extremism", and a third arrow leading to another word, "Extremism" and the word MODERATION crushing all three like an anvil.

That's the nature of the battle we face. Extremism surrounds us on all sides and moderation can only be found by separating ourselves from the extremism and obliterating the extremism within ourselves and those around us. This is why it's so lonely to disengage from the analism, promiscuity, effeminacy, machoism, abstinence, and heterosexism. I won't argue that it's not lonely, but at the same time there's a sweetness to leaving behind the chains of your former masters and declaring yourself a free man. And it's something you'll only experience by joining the fight.

Your fellow warrior,

Greg Milliken