Smart people saying smart things

Jay Michaelson: “Why Rick Santorum Can’t Just Say: God Doesn’t Want You To Be Gay

If it were social policy that motivated him, he’d read the studies of same-sex couples in Massachusetts and in other countries, which show that they raise children as well as opposite-sex couples, form stable families, and the rest. But what Santorum is motivated by is actually religion: a fear of sexuality and of women souped-up by a misreading of Leviticus, Romans, and Corinthians.

But he can’t really say that on television. If he were honest, he’d just come out and say something like: “I’m sorry, but God just cannot abide any homosexual behavior.” But he isn’t.

Now, in no way am I claiming that the Bible prohibits same-sex intimacy. I have written a book showing the exact opposite: that biblical values demand us to affirm it. Rick Santorum’s views are not dictated by St. Paul, but he believes that they are, and that’s enough.

Let me take one further step. Santorum and other homophobes cannot speak frankly because their real motivations are private, emotional, and incoherent. It’s not as though Santorum dispassionately selected Catholicism from a menu of religious ideologies. He believes because he feels.

… And this is why we cannot argue with people who subscribe to this framework: there is simply too much at stake for them. They have wedded their fundamental sense of okay-ness to the truthfulness of a set of doctrines. Not only is sociology not at issue for Rick Santorum, Romans isn’t either. What is at stake is his very sense that the world is a good place, that things are basically okay, and that he himself is okay as a result. That may be expressed in a theological framework, but it is a psychological reality. If I marry my partner, therefore, Rick Santorum is not okay.

The rest is window dressing.

D. Mark Davis: “Same-Sex Marriage: A Sign of the Times

When it comes to the legalization of same-sex marriage in Iowa, I believe that the State has spoken prophetically to the Church. I know, I know, the dominant voices in our society that speak in the name of the church seem to imply the opposite. They argue that the State has violated God’s clear and consistent law and that the Church has to speak prophetically to the State by condemning this action and working to reverse it.

I’m finding that argument to be tiresome. It is grounded in a view of sovereignty that looks too much like Empire thinking and not Cross thinking; it is grounded in a view of sin that always points outward and never seriously points inward; and it is grounded in a view of redemption that is essentially built on winning a game of tug-of-war, rather than discovering God’s redemptive presence among others.

In my mind, the State (for the most part) is right and the Church (predominantly, certainly not unanimously) is wrong on this one. It’s happened before, of course. Some churches were still banging on the ‘slavery is permitted by the Bible – even in the New Testament!’ drum long after the nation said ‘no more.’ Some churches were still intentionally racially divided long after the Civil Rights Act passed. And so on.

Hal Crowther: “Otherwise occupied: What price revolution? (via AZspot)

We woke up from our consumer coma to discover that the bastards had stolen everything. You’ve seen the numbers: The wealthiest 1 percent of Americans, the super-rich targeted by OWS, emerged from this shattered, looted economy with a net worth greater than the “bottom” 90 percent.

… Meanwhile, one in seven Americans lives below the poverty line, and a full one-third,100 million — live in poverty or what The New York Times calls “the fretful zone just above it.” One in 15, the largest percentage since the Great Depression, falls 50 percent below the poverty line, with an annual individual income of less than $6,000. In a recent German study that established a “social justice” index (poverty levels, education, health care, income equality) for countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the United States ranked 27th among 31 nations, outstripping only Greece, Turkey, Chile and Mexico. Meanwhile, also, Wall Street banks on taxpayer life support continued to pay out billions in bonuses, monstrously inflated CEO salaries showed no signs of shrinking and the Republican Party campaigned for more of the bloody same, and a stronger dose of it: no taxes, no regulations, no unions.

Randy Woodley: “Quoting God

What I hear God say in creation, through others, in the Scriptures, through a song, through a movie, through an experience, or directly is by design suspect, not because God doesn’t speak, but because I don’t hear so well. My listening ability is tempered by experiences in which I have been hurt or rejected, or given undue credit, or by a lack of perspective through missing knowledge or experience, or how I interpreted that knowledge or experience, or by a lack of accountability in my life, or by a thousand other possibilities that show me I am not God. I am just a human being. And even though being a human is a good thing, what I know for sure about every human is that we all make mistakes.

Katy Scrogin: “Toward a Hopeful Politics: Vaclav Havel’s Legacy of Responsible Commitment

The way in which many Americans envision the good life, then, not only entails neglect of others’ needs and desires, but it also involves being constantly on guard against potential constraints that may be placed upon us. True autonomy, we believe, is equivalent to freedom from anything that would make claims upon the individual. Demands are feared as encroachments upon our ability to direct our life as we desire. If we cannot successfully avoid such intrusions, we are obviously not fully independent, and hence, we are not worthy to be called individuals. Additionally, if people dare to ask others for assistance, such requests are not only seen as proof of the petitioners’ weakness, but they are also often interpreted as attempts by the petitioners to achieve their desires by piggybacking on the hard work of others instead of doing that work themselves. Absent here is the understanding that humans cannot act in isolation from each other and that interdependence contributes to the health, strength, and richness of individuals and societies.

The valorization of isolated autonomy is evident, for example, in cries against government welfare programs, immigrant amnesty, public health care, government regulation of business, and “socialism” in general. People who take this perspective fear both that their material possessions will be decreased or taken away and that they will somehow be cheated if others receive assistance that they do not believe they require. This sense of ressentiment may disguise the unacknowledged fear that if we accept the validity of social safety nets, we may have to make use of them at some point in our own lives, thereby compromising our independence. And people tend to mask this fear with the openly declared anxiety that, should such assistance to others continue, the country as we know it will become unrecognizable and that we will abandon our historical respect for individual freedom along with it. As has been especially evident in recent national conversations about health care and taxation, for example, some people who expect such outcomes attempt to avoid this destruction of individual freedom by broadcasting ill-informed pronouncements that are intended to instill equal levels of fear in others. As a result, policy discussions become confused and then stall as legislators attempt to separate fact from falsity and sometimes give in to their own fear of losing their jobs by backing away from contested issues. Throughout this process, rhetoric becomes increasingly angry and accusatory, a situation which polarizes debates to an even greater degree and calls into doubt the belief that people of varying opinions are able to or even desirous of working or living together.

  • Anonymous

    If I marry my partner, therefore, Rick Santorum is not okay.

    Another reason to marry one’s partner, then.

  • giltay

    On same-sex marriage, here’s a good explanation of what the heck just happened in Canada: http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/01/12/are-some-marriages-are-more-equal-than-others/

  • Helena

    Michaelson’s point about Santorum seem clever and insightful. But I can’t imagine what he means about Paul not condemning same-sex intimacy? What other way is there to read “Neither the effeminate (malakoi), nor men who share their beds with another man (aresenokoites) …shall not inherit the kingdom of god”? (probably he couldn’t imagine that Lesbians exist, so he never condemns them). Its pretty hard not to take this as a condemnation. What I have observed is that when classicists write on the passage (1Cor 6:9-10), they generally take it as an expression of Paul’s disapproval of same sex relations (you can hardly read back the modern social construction of homosexuality into the first century) along with prostitution, idolatry, and adultery, but when homosexual apologists and liberal theologians, it somehow means something else (the quote is typical–’I've written a whole book explaining how the text doesn’t mean what it says, but I can’t be bothered to expend one phrase proving my point here’).

    I think this is a case where human morality has grown far beyond the bible. Paul really did condemn homosexuality because of the primitive society he was embedded in, just as he supported slavery for the same reason, but we can see that those positions are immoral. That is no warrant for pretending Paul agreed with us.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Stephen Harper just became the world’s biggest asshole.

  • Anonymous

    What I notice is that most of the references to homosexuality, especially those by Paul, are thinking of unfaithfulness.  Take Romans 1, for example.  Paul goes on about how people without God engage in all manner of inappropriate actions, including lust without love.  He was picturing things like married men engaging in orgies and casual sex with others.  The point for me was that sex should not be separated from love.  It’s clear that Paul had some hang-ups about sexuality, but the modern view of monogamous homosexual relationships didn’t really exist in that time.  I believe that, if confronted with a true loving monogamous homosexual relationship, Paul would ultimately conclude that the love is more important than the sex.  Sex that interferes with love is evil, but sex that validates love cannot be.

  • Anonymous

    Well, for one thing, ‘malakoi’ doesn’t mean ‘effeminate’. It means soft men, which generally meant ‘Lazy men who didn’t do any work’ or ‘cowardly men’. I.e., it’s like calling a man a p*ssy. In the context of the bible, it almost certainly means ‘male prostitute’. That one we’re pretty sure of.

    ‘Effeminate’ in the sense of ‘like a woman’ which was, obviously, ‘androgynos’. (Aka, ‘man-woman’.)

    What ‘arsenokoites’, aka, men-bedders has been much debated, but it’s not ‘men who sleep with men’, which already has a word in Greek: androkoites. No one really seems to know what that word means, and it’s been translated as about a hundred different things. Considering it’s right after ‘male prostitutes’, a common guess is ‘men who have sex with male prostitutes’.

  • Anonymous

    Well, “malakoi” does not actually translate as “effeminate.” It means “soft,” as in the kind of people who accept the benefits of Christianity without doing the actual sacrifice or work for it. No one actually knows what “aresenokoites” means, and it seems to be a word Paul coined. Around the time of the reformation it was translated as “masturbation.” 

    ‘I’ve written a whole book explaining how the text doesn’t mean what it says, but I can’t be bothered to expend one phrase proving my point here’

    You happy now?

  • Anonymous

    Hi, Helena!
    I had some fun exploring translations of those terms – the tl;dr version is that things are not nearly so cut and dried as they appear, and the main uses of those scriptures seem to be at odds with just about everything else.

    If you have the time for an archive dive, I’d strongly recommend the “Sex & Money” series of posts here, as well as “Who Made Steve.” You can probably find them using your favorite search engine. Sorry I can’t spend more time digging – I have to work, but this is definitely an avenue worth exploration!

  • Anonymous

    I hadn’t heard that explanation of what was meant by ‘soft’, but that makes sense also. OTOH, it is a list that mostly concerns itself with actual immoral things, so ‘people who aren’t acting to their full potential’ seems a bit out of place.

    But regardless of what those words are intended, there is one important fact: There already was a Greek word for ‘girly man’, specially ‘androgynos’, and there already was a greek word for ‘men who have sex with men’, specially ‘androkoites’.

    Anyone hence who wants to assert those things are what Paul meant are going to have to explain why he didn’t use the actual Greek words that meant those things.

  • Nathaniel

    My response is simple. The bible is a book which condemns many things, including but not limited too:
    1.) Wearing nylon or other mixed threads
    2.) Boiling a kid(baby goat) in its mother’s milk
    3.) Women speaking up in church.

    Given its track record, why the hell should I care that it speaks in a tone of horror about men having sex with men?

  • Anonymous

    To quote John Wesley on malakoi (and no one could ever accuse him of being a liberal theologian), “[those] Who live in an easy, indolent way; taking up no cross, enduring no hardship. But how is this? These good-natured, harmless people are ranked with idolaters and sodomites! We may learn hence, that we are never secure from the greatest sins, till we guard against those which are thought the least; nor, indeed, till we think no sin is little, since every one is a step toward hell.”

  • http://from1angle.wordpress.com emilyperson

    I haven’t really looked at the Bible in a few years, so I don’t know if it’s an extrabiblical invention or something Paul would have cared about, but I think there’s something in some strains of Christian theology that says not living up to one’s full potential is immoral. I swear there was a Left Behind post that was mostly about how The Heroes caring more about proselytizing than about doing their jobs was another sign of LaJenkins’ bad writing and bad theology.

    (Edited because punctuation does not work that way.)

  • Jenora Feuer

    Well, it may be extra-biblical, but Paul was an educated Roman citizen and spent a good bit of time talking to Greek intellectuals.  There are interpretations of Aristotelian ethics and Eudaimonia (which Paul would almost certainly have been familiar with) that do basically boil down to ‘the greatest virtue is in striving to meet your full potential’.

  • http://thetalkingllama.wordpress.com/ SketchesbyBoze

    “Given its track record, why the hell should I care that it speaks in a tone of horror about men having sex with men?”

    Because in the early Church, those passages you’re citing were universally recognized as belonging to a part of the Scriptures relating to the nation of Israel which had reached its fulfillment in the death and resurrection of Israel’s greatest Prophet. The prohibition on homosexuality endures to this day because homosexual attraction is rooted in a particular substance; as Paul very helpfully explains in Romans 1, that substance is the self-denigrating, worthlessness-reinforcing idolization of the same sex. It’s the same substance as idolatrous heterosexual obsession, except that it’s directed not at people of the opposite sex, but the same sex. Jesus and the apostles spoke out with forceful consistency against both kinds of obsessive attraction (Mt. 5:28-29, 2 Peter 2:14, Rev. 2:12-17, among others).

  • http://thetalkingllama.wordpress.com/ SketchesbyBoze

    Fred re-posted links to all those posts only five or six days ago!

  • Anonymous

    Actually I think Rick does believe That God think disproves and condemns of homosexual relationships. I would be surprised if at some point he has not said so, but in saying that I have not checked. I suspect if you asked him he would be happy to say so. I also believe his views are directed by his understanding of the bible. I might not agree with his understanding (I don’t) but I just don’t say how you can say, 

    “If he were honest, he’d just come out and say something like: “I’m
    sorry, but God just cannot abide any homosexual behavior.” But he isn’t.”

    Sorry this just doesn’t make sense to me and trying to say that his real motivations are

    ” private, emotional, and incoherent.”

    How do you know they are incoherent? Maybe in his mind he really does believe God objects, I may disagree with him but I’m sure we can ascribe his motivations for believing what he does that seems likes wishful thinking to me

  • Nathaniel

    And yet those laws were once considered valid. By the same holy book. And if the laws are a bad idea, why were the valid in the past. If they were a good idea in the past, why aren’t they so now?

    And BTW, the one about women shutting the hell up in church comes from Paul. So that’s yet another Biblical rule that people like you arbitrarily ignore.

  • ako

    The prohibition on homosexuality endures to this day because homosexual
    attraction is rooted in a particular substance; as Paul very helpfully
    explains in Romans 1, that substance is the self-denigrating,
    worthlessness-reinforcing idolization of the same sex. It’s the same
    substance as idolatrous heterosexual obsession, except that it’s
    directed not at people of the opposite sex, but the same sex.

    So do you consider all attraction to one’s own gender equivalent to idolatrous heterosexual obsession, or only the idolatrously obsessive kind?

  • P J Evans

     So your point is what, exactly?

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

    Presumably the source of the confusion was that Saint the apostle Paul had to translate it into Greek from the original 17th century English.

  • Nathaniel

    My point is that much as people like Sketches might claim they get their rules of living from the bible, they don’t. They get their rules of living from somewhere else, then look into the bible to find what rules match. Then ignore or handwave away all the others.

    As Fred’s “bible-believing” evangelical friends told him about usury, some things are more equally literal than others. 

  • Helena

    As I have mentioned before I am a classics professor, and I am glad to see see so many of what must be my colleagues, who are able to dispute my understanding of Greek based on their own knowledge.  Their claims, however, are extraordinary. Malakos certainly has a range of meanings. When applied to people, it often means ‘soft’ or ‘fair.’ But those sense are positive, and clearly not what is meant by Paul. The meaning of lazy for the pejorative sense is an interesting conjecture. Can its supporters suggest a clear parallel that suggests that meaning? I ask, because I’ve never encountered such a usage. I note that the Liddel-Scott-Jones Great Greek Dictionary is also ignorant of such a usage, so whoever can find one has a journal article ahead of him. So I won’t appear to be arguing from my own authority, however, I will note that the LSJ takes the basic pejorative sense of the word as applied to persons as “lacking in self-control’ which can specify one of two moral states. The first is cowardice, which I don’t think can be meant in this context. The other possibility the editors define with another Greek word, one commonly used to spare the moral sensibilities of poorly Greeked Victorian readers: pathetikos, which comes into English as pathick–i.e., a man who likes to be penetrated by other men (something the Greeks considered extraordinarily shameful). Among the citations the LSJ gives for this sense is 1 EP. Cor. 6.9. Strange isn’t it, that all the classicists here know better, not only than me, but than the consensus of the last hundred and fifty years of Classical scholarship. Paul’s contemporary Petronius also thought the word meant effeminate (its the root of the character name Trimalchio), but he wasn’t a native Greek speaker, so he couldn’t know what it meant, could he?

    And if I can be more serious, no, pretending that Greek words mean something other than they they mean (and there is no doubt about what aresenokoites means–it is not Paul’s invention but occurs in Hellenistic lyric verse, e.g Palantine Anthology 9.686), does not convince that when Classicists read Paul he hates homosexuals, but when liberal apologists read, he suddenly does not is the fault of the classicists.

  • Helena

    As I have mentioned before I am a classics professor, and I am glad to see see so many of what must be my colleagues, who are able to dispute my understanding of Greek based on their own knowledge.  Their claims, however, are extraordinary. Malakos certainly has a range of meanings. When applied to people, it often means ‘soft’ or ‘fair.’ But those sense are positive, and clearly not what is meant by Paul. The meaning of lazy for the pejorative sense is an interesting conjecture. Can its supporters suggest a clear parallel that suggests that meaning? I ask, because I’ve never encountered such a usage. I note that the Liddel-Scott-Jones Great Greek Dictionary is also ignorant of such a usage, so whoever can find one has a journal article ahead of him. So I won’t appear to be arguing from my own authority, however, I will note that the LSJ takes the basic pejorative sense of the word as applied to persons as “lacking in self-control’ which can specify one of two moral states. The first is cowardice, which I don’t think can be meant in this context. The other possibility the editors define with another Greek word, one commonly used to spare the moral sensibilities of poorly Greeked Victorian readers: pathetikos, which comes into English as pathick–i.e., a man who likes to be penetrated by other men (something the Greeks considered extraordinarily shameful). Among the citations the LSJ gives for this sense is 1 EP. Cor. 6.9. Strange isn’t it, that all the classicists here know better, not only than me, but than the consensus of the last hundred and fifty years of Classical scholarship. Paul’s contemporary Petronius also thought the word meant effeminate (its the root of the character name Trimalchio), but he wasn’t a native Greek speaker, so he couldn’t know what it meant, could he?

    And if I can be more serious, no, pretending that Greek words mean something other than they they mean (and there is no doubt about what aresenokoites means–it is not Paul’s invention but occurs in Hellenistic lyric verse, e.g Palantine Anthology 9.686), does not convince that when Classicists read Paul he hates homosexuals, but when liberal apologists read, he suddenly does not is the fault of the classicists.

  • http://stealingcommas.blogspot.com/ chris the cynic


    As I have mentioned before I am a classics professor

    I see that you’ve said your area of expertise is Late Antiquity.  That would explain why you call yourself Helena Constantine.

    Generally when I think of Greek in Late Antiquity I think of it as a time when the language was on the decline.  What are some of your favorite authors in that period?

    -

    More on topic, it’s been a while since I looked at the Satyricon, the work by Petronius which you reference, or anything about Petronius in general for that matter, but I don’t recall any clear indications that he actually knew Greek.  Not all Latin writers did.  Then there’s the general stereotypes about the Greeks that the Romans had, which we would need to take into account before accepting a Roman use of a Greek word as what someone speaking in Greek would necessarily have meant by it.

    Could you, perhaps, share how you were able to account for these factors as you went about reaching your conclusion?

  • Anonymous

    I don’t recall any clear indications that he actually knew Greek.

    To be honest, Chris, while it’s true that not all Latin writers knew Greek, most of them did in the Classical period*, in the same way that most English writers in the 18th century knew French. And if the author of the Satyricon is the man he’s generally assumed to have been, a courtier of the arch-Helleniser Nero, then it’s as near certain as makes no odds that he would have been fluent in Greek.

    *Julius Caesar, admittedly slightly pre-Classical, is reported as having cried out in Greek in the middle of being assassinated. If you can comment in any language while people are sticking knives in you, you’re probably pretty comfortable with the idiom.

  • Anonymous

    When applied to people, it often means ‘soft’ or ‘fair.’

    Uh, no, when applied to people, malakos always means ‘soft’ or ‘fair’. There’s not any other possible meaning of it. (Although it’s possible that it’s a specific example of this that Paul is thinking of.)

    People who argue that it means ‘effeminate’ are attempting to confuse an entirely different concept in English. The word is, indeed, literally what the Greek thought of as effeminate, aka, ‘like a woman’…because they were rather sexist and made assumptions about the life of women.

    It’s ‘people who are as frivolous as women’ or ‘people who do as little work as women’ or ‘people who are as lazy as women’. It’s not ‘effeminate’ in the sense of ‘men prancing around with limp wrists’,  which is what modern speakers think when men are called ‘effeminate’. Men who actually looked like women were androgynos.

    And there’s not ‘another definition’ of malakos meaning ‘men penetrated during sex’…it was just assumed that such men were lazy and effeminate. Please look at Plutarch’s Dialogue on Love, which has someone arguing
    that men who love women have more malakos than men who love men. (The
    Greeks tended to think femininity was, in essence, contagious.) Their idea of malakos included married men who did whatever their wife said!

    And pointing out the translation during the Victorian era hardly demonstrates anything.

    Like I said, ‘malakos’ best translates, in modern English, as calling a man a ‘p*ssy’. Or a ‘wimp’. Or asking who wears the pants in his relationship. (It’s actually hard to talk about this, because a lot of the concept here are so impossibly sexist.)

    It is not calling a man ‘effeminate’ in the sense we use the word, which is, I must point out, a fairly prejudice thing to think of gay people as anyway.

    And if I can be more serious, no, pretending that Greek words
    mean something other than they they mean (and there is no doubt about
    what aresenokoites means–it is not Paul’s invention but occurs
    in Hellenistic lyric verse, e.g Palantine Anthology 9.686),

    Uh, yes, we know it does…and it doesn’t mean gay sex there either.

    I have no idea what context it you’re referring to, but in almost every context that arsenokoites shows up, it is listed as a economic sin.

    Let’s look at the ‘Acts of John’, an Apocryphal text that I don’t want to ascribe religious meaning to, but I think we can assume the author at least uses words correctly:

    ‘And let the murderer know that the punishment
    he has earned awaits him in double measure after he leaves this
    (world). So also the poisoner, sorcerer, robber, swindler, and arsenokoités, the thief and all of this band.’

    Or look at Theophilus of Antioch, in his treatise addressed To Autolychus. Look at chapter 2. In that link arsenokoites is translated as ‘whether you do not corrupt boys’, but the actual important point I’m making is where it is located. Not at the start, with the adulterers and fornicators…but right after people who steal stuff.

    ‘Do you, therefore, show me yourself, whether you are not an adulterer, or a fornicator, or a thief, or a robber, or a purloiner; whether you do not corrupt boys; whether you are not insolent, or a slanderer, or passionate, or envious, or proud, or supercilious; whether you are not a brawler, or covetous, or disobedient to parents; and whether you do not sell your children;’

    Arsenokoites is an economic crime that involves sex. Possibly it’s people who hire prostitutes and don’t pay, perhaps it’s just people who hire prostitutes. Perhaps it’s talking about adult men who essentially ‘buy’ young boys to raise and have sex with, as the translation above seems to think. It is not ‘all men who have sex with men’, at least not without the involvement of money.

  • http://stealingcommas.blogspot.com/ chris the cynic

    For the most part I don’t disagree though I think using Golden Age Latin as an argument for Silver Age Latin is sketchy at best.  Something as simple as the changing relationship with the works of Sappho* shows that Roman understanding of Greek was nowhere near as uniform as you make it out to be.

    The thing that does make me think he probably knew Greek more than anything else is his ties to Nero.  Nero was famously interested in all things Greek to a degree various other Romans considered just plain wrong.

    Even so, I do think that there’s a definite need to take, “A Sliver Age Roman writer named a Greek character using this Greek work in a work otherwise in Latin therefore the word means X,” with a lot of seasoning.  Trimalchio had a lot of things going on with him and effeminate was very low on the list.**
    Helena brought up that Petronius wasn’t a native speaker, I think it’s worth pointing out that we don’t even know if he was a speaker at all (though he probably was) and if he was we don’t know know anything about his exposure to the Greek.  We don’t know if it was first hand or through written works, in either case we don’t know anything about the topics or words that might have come up.  And furthermore it wasn’t just a language to the Romans, it was a language associated with a certain people about whom they had a lot of stereotypes.-* Yes I know it’s Aeolic, but that brings up another thing. Petronius probably wouldn’t have been using Koine, as a Roman he would probably be using Attic, which is very closely related to Koine, but not an ideal indication of what a provincial person working in Koine would mean.

    ** This needs to be repeated.  The Cena Trimalchionis is about a lot of things and if we’re trying to derive a meaning from Trimalchio’s name based on it that meaning would more likely be “excess” than “effeminate”.  Well, “excess” or “totally failing to get it”. 

    [Edited because I start to say something one way, switch to another way part way through, and end up saying the opposite of what I meant as a result]


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X