This time, experience intercepted us before we made a mistake. We didn't have a moral problem with this festival. It certainly didn't violate what had been the Shrine's standards of propriety, as mentioned in "Discussing Sex". But, a few months after starting this article, we had the chance to get to know a subculture in which far greater license in matters of sex, nudity etc. was seen, than has been the norm in the Midwest for some time. The experience was educational, in the most disappointing way possible, and in time we gained a little understanding about our era, and how we have to deal with it.

One thing that one has to remember about Political Correctness, the cultural blight of our era, is that it is very often anti-sexual, when the sex spoken of is the kind sought out by a heterosexual male, especially a "white" one. This has created a large pool of young men who, possessing few traits that would help them attract the opposite sex even in better times, have been more than eager to trade in their self-respect and the few principles they had for an occasional quick bout of that all-too-rare attention of the women around them. (If that attention involves actual physical contact, so much the better for them).

The "Phil Donahue Syndrome" is a name that has been attached to much of the resulting behavior, the opportunistic males proving their "sensitivity" by seeking out opportunities to mistreat other males on behalf of women they may be in disputes with, spouting PC rhetoric throughout. This has not failed to attract the attention of some of the more opportunistic, and power hungry, young women, who've been more than delighted to assemble these hormone-driven would-be defenders into instant lynch mobs. Sometimes that is a figure of speech, and sometimes it really isn't : real, physical violence sometimes makes its appearance.

It pays to remember why we are here. As we have said before, we are not here for the sake of titillation. We are here to hold the Symposia, in which free and open discussion is to flourish in a place where people are at ease with each other, and community is built. But free and open discussion will be, and historically has been, the first thing to be lost when the kind of sexual power games we have discussed become commonplace. To seem to hold out the promise, probably false, that there will be naked young women running around, would draw in these opportunistic young men like bees to honey. The opportunistic young women, knowing a good opportunity when they see one, would not be far behind.

This is exactly what we saw happen, again and again, during our time out West. Worse still the men so got into the habit of ganging up on lone dissidents that even without a woman making a complaint, they would go on the attack for questioning local dogmas as absurd as the belief that desert dust will burn its way through shoe leather and plastic. To hope for any sort of real intellectual exchange under conditions like these would be absurd, and similar ones have been reported by others, where the mores have been likewise relaxed, often in "Pagan" settings.

One does have to know what one's priorities are, and a reality like this one would clearly not be in keeping with our mission statement.

So, what do we do about this? Can we eliminate the nudity, and then hold the event? No. Tradition, as it has come down to us, is most clear on this point. Lupercus/Faunus/Pan (?) would be most displeased. Could we otherwise tone it down, make it less titillating? Maybe, but what, then, would be the point of holding it? The answer, in the light of contemporary experience (circa 2002) is that the Shrine simply can't hold this festival. Period.

I guess the question is why events this risque could be held on campuses a decade or two back, without the unpleasant social consequences seen today. It was, of course, a much different world back then, but the setting also matters. The stories one hears of strange, pleasant goings-on come from serious places like MIT, or Cal Tech, or the University of Chicago, places where the dregs of society are unlikely to be. The events would be limited to the students, faculty and staff. The students' existence, as a group of students, was not defined by these parties. These were fun things that they would remember, but they were bound together by a common experience of something far more serious, demanding enough to weed out those seeking quick and easy gratification, and nothing else. Their existence as students centered on the very thing that the dogmatic opportunists we speak of, so actively work to undermine : serious, free and open intellectual exchange.

As the Shrine, we can not give you that same experience. Serious study schedules begin at forty hours per week, and serious students wouldn't have it otherwise. We can't ask you to invest that kind of time in our little group. Presumably, you have a life. Nor would there be that sense that you were building your future, that gave so much meaning to the lives of students back then, and sometimes still does, even now, if not as often as it should.

No, if we were to hold this event, it would have to be held a private party, with close friends only. That's a lot different from what the Romans did, but given the realities of Chicago's climate in mid-February, this much was a given to begin with. But a nice Valentine's Day celebration with symbolic remembrances of the history, at which all kept their clothes on, would be entirely appropriate, just so long as we had the good sense to know who we should not be calling on, as we held this less provocative event.

Note : Some will be dissatisfied with this, saying something like "Look, you've just acknowledged that this festival is a symbolic celebration of the life of the city, with the two boys ^* in the original festival arguably standing in for Romulus and Remus. How can it be fitting that such a celebration never be done out in public, at least somewhat, where the life of the city is to be found, or at least some of it is?". I don't deny that this criticism has some merit. What I do deny is that a group like the Shrine can be the right group to hold such an event. So, one might ask, what would be the right kind of group? How does one solve the problems such a celebration would raise, in our present day social setting?

Within the question itself, is to be found the answer. What is the problem? We're afraid that the opportunity for sexual power playing will distort the process of discussion in this hypothetical group. And where, one might ask, is one to find the opportunities at power playing that we're concerned might draw in the wrong element - or, more to the point, when are those opportunities absent? The answer is, that they are only absent when people aren't having non-directed conversations (as in, those conversing are not working together on a narrowly defined task). So, in other words, for the opportunities which we are concerned about to be absent, one must do away with those conversations. That may sound too extreme to be sane, but it really isn't. Look back to your high school days. You would sit in a class, do your work, and when the bell rang, you didn't get to sit around shooting the breeze, and talking about who should have done what in class. It was time for you to leave and go on to your next class. Boom! Off you go.

And that is the approach which would be fitting here. This hypothetical group would not be a social gathering. One would simply come, do some sort of free form ritual, and leave, like you did at the end of those old classes. At the close, the host would bid all to depart, each to go on his merry way. One could have a light-hearted good time (what I've just described is how most adult-education courses work), but with the absence of a real social element, there would be no power to be had, and thus, nothing to lure those we would want to stay away. Even if a few of them should come, with each moment spoken for by an assigned activity, their opportunities to create problems would be at a minimum. The sort of group that we're describing is obviously neither a democracy, or a semi-anarchy like the Shrine, because the members have little opportunity to even connect, much less discuss possible decisions. By necessity, such a group would have to be governed by some sort of hierarchy, which would direct the membership through each celebration, and maybe hold classes to explain what is going on. Feedback from the membership to the hierarchy would have to be one-on-one, because the moment the membership gathers, that prohibited non-directed social element appears - the two (or more) respondants will start to interact with each other, in the context of the group.

There is much more to discuss - like how to promote mature behavior during events like this. (Perhaps the establishment of something akin to a mystery tradition that would encourage some feeling of reverence for what the festivals represent, in the midst of the traditional frivolity, maybe with some tie in to a chivalric tradition, in which each gender is called on to pay it respects to the other, in some customary manner; "chivalry" is embedded enough in modern tradition for modern man to be able to connect to it with relative ease). But, clearly, one can already see that the group described bears no resemblance to the Shrine, and would be an unsuitable one for paying our respects to Aphrodite Urania. Aphrodite Pandemos might be another matter.

It is a cliche, but it is true : Hellenism is not a one-stop shopping religion. Such a group, were it the only religion in the lives of its membership, would leave them feeling a little empty. What is missing is spontaneous human interaction, which is what a group like the Shrine offers. What we draw out of this, is that such a holiday, in its fullness, ought to be approached almost as a sort of mystery tradition in its own right, an experience, not to be talked about, but simply lived through, maybe with oaths of secrecy to keep thoughts of the world outside, as all enter the sacred space. This much seems reasonable enough - if you're running around naked swinging a symbolic whip, and you suddenly stop to discuss the day's events, aren't you going to feel really silly? Just keep your head in the ritual, and save the small talk for groups like ours.

Click here to continue.

(*) It bears repeating here : the "boys" in question are young men who've come of age (as in voting age), not children.