March Book Review (1)

Happy Tuesday everyone,

IonlyreadonebookthismonthbecauseIwassotiredandstressedthatIjustwantedtonapandwatchnetflixinbetweenstresseatingpotatos.

So instead of reviewing all the books I read this month I'm going to to write about how much of a flaming homosexual the man who wrote the book we had to read in English 205 is. Was? Was. He is very dead. Like the 1500s dead.

Now you may think, "Ky? You look particularly lovely today." And you would be right because I'm wearing a new foundation and lip stick and also I showered after several days.

Now you may think, "Ky? What's the big deal about him being gay?" And I will tell you. Obviously.

The collection of essay we were set to read is, "On friendship" by Michel De Montaigne. To give a little background, Montaigne (1533-1592) was a writer and philosopher who lived in France with his wife and daughter. Now don't let his family life throw you off from his raging homosexuality. It is my theory that Montaigne did not in fact know he was gay. And for some reason no one else did. My professor even brough it up (the gay agenda).

We had to write an essay on this book and one of the three parts of our prompt (Sheesh! And each three parts had three subpart.) was on the fact that Montaigne says that true friendship cannot be obtained in the "erotic" realms . . . Between man and women. When we got to this part my professor adressed the gay elephant in the room. Which I thought was cool for an older Indian dude. He said that Montaigne did not include gay relationships in his writings. He said their were gay relationships of course but that Montaigne just wasn't involved in that world. And then I read the book and couldn't understand that my professor could not see how gay this man was!

Let me provide some evidense. "Our souls support each other. In the friendship which I am talking about, souls are mingled and confounded in so universal a blending that they efface the seam which joins them together so that it cannot be found." (pg 9). I'm not going to properly cite this quote because I don't wanna. Now. I don't know about yall. But my soul doesn't go near the soul of anyone's but my boyfriend. Even just in this sentence you can see that the way he is describing a friendship with another man is actually love. Only when you love someone does you souls hold hands. Yes, you love your friends and your family but one's soul only touches that of another who is their (I'm gonna get a bit disney here) true love. Or. Hmmm. Maybe your SOULMATE! And Montaigne brings this soul mingling thing up several times. It boggles my mind that no one else sees this! Especially him! Like this dude is a smarticle philosopher.

Is that enough proof you? Wait! There's more. Here he describes his friendship with another man, ". . . That loving relationship between us as it please God we fostered so perfect and so entire that is is certain that few such can even be read about, and no trace at all of it can be found among men of today." A couple things. The kind of relationship he just described can be found between millions of men today. It is called GAY. A couple more things. I don't know God that well. But I doubt that the relationship between bffs "Please God" int he way that Montaigne is describing. I agree that God could have been smiling down at that relationship. But not because they'll be bffffffffffs. But because they are in love and God approves. And the fact that Montaigne values this relationship so highly that he believes it can't be found any where else . . . Sounds pretty freaking gay to me.

Now there are many more quotes that I can analyze in this book to support my gay theory. But I'm lazy. And I need to post this asap as it is late. So I'm going to move on to the quotes that proves that not only is Montaigne in love with men. He is not in love with women. Including his wife. In fact he is sexist.

Okay this quote is to long. To summarize he says women need to be controlled and are only good for babies. Later he describes how he would have rather had a son because boys. "Are less born to serve and whose mode-of-being is freer: I would have loved to make their hearts overflow with openness and frankness." Oh wait I found a shorter quote that reiterates what I summarized. "Women should have no mastery over men save only the natural one of motherhood."

And her is how he describes the love between men and women. Please compare it to how he describes his friendship with men. "Marriage is a bond both religious and devout: that is why the pleasure we derive from it must be serious, restrained and intermingled with some gravity; it's sensuousness should be somewhat wise and dutiful. It's chief end is procreation." The way he describe these to relationships are so different. Love is not restrained. It is souls mingling. The way he describes the restrained relationship with women sounds like someone who loves men but feels forced to be with women out of duty and to create children.

That's all. I wanted to take more time to do this and reread the book but this post is late and I'm exhausted so that's all.

Good night,
Totally Ky

<Oh. And this is what I look like today.