If homosexuality, as the union of two beings sharing the same sexual
characteristics, is theorically contrary to the vision of Evola, in which sex
takes the shape of a tension between two opposite poles (masculine and
feminine), we know that his refusal to reduct gender to a mere biological
subject may introduce some subtleties. As far as I know, Evola twice elaborated
on this point : in "Metaphysics of sex" (in an appendix at the end of the second
chapter - pp. 62-66) and in "L'arc et la massue" (the bow and the club), in the
third chapter, entitled "le troisième sexe" (the third sex). Please don't
hesitate to mention any text that might remain unknown to me.
In "Metaphysics of sex", he begins by reminding Plato's distinction between :
- „Aphrodite Urania" (the „goddess of a noble love which is not carnal and not
concerned by procreation" or the arousal provoked by „incorporeal beauty not
linked to any particular person ; divine beauty in an abstract sense"). After
Evola, there is „no real problem if the accidental starting point is a being of
the same sex".
- Aphrodite Pandemia or the carnal side of eros. Evola remains that pederasty in
ancient Greece, while being „uranic" in its beginning, became carnal during the
time of decay.
Evola rightly rejects Plato's application of the myth of the hermaphrodite to
homosexuality because „the mythical being of our origin would, in such a case,
have not to be hermaphroditic but homogeneous and of one sex only […] Thus, the
essential [...] loses its meaning, namely, the idea of the polarity and the
complementary nature of the two sexes as the basis of the magnetism of love and
of a transcendency in eros, and of the blinding and destructive revelation of
the One."
Then, he differenciates between an inborn, natural homosexuality and an acquired
one. He links the first one (as would do Weininger) to an incompletion of sexual
development (on biological and psychic levels) : „In that way, the original
bisexual nature is surpassed in a lesser extent than in a „normal" being, the
characteristics of one sex not being predominant over those of the other sex to
the same extent".
But „intermediate sexual forms" nowadays are also likely to derive from the
contemporary egalitarianist and materialistic environment, leading to
neutralization and undifferentiation, and then to the constitution of a „third
sex". The problems of manly homosexuals remains, and according to Evola, „such
homosexuality is hard to explain". However, „there is reason to suppose that it
is merely a matter of „mutual masturbation" and that the conditioned reflexes
are exploited for „pleasure"". Concerning ancient homosexuality, when men had
sex both with women and „epheboi", Evola links it to a simple „desire to try
everything". After distinguishing between hermaphroditic wholeness (which „can
only be sufficiency") and „the pederast who acts both like a man and a woman
sexually", he finally concludes by sustaining that when homosexuality does not
come from an incomplete level of sexual development, it is necessarily a
pathological deviation caused by a „displacement of eros".
What we could logically conclude after this reading is that according to Evola,
homosexuals are either subhumans (incomplete beings by nature who can not access
to the superior, transcendental dimension of sex) or perverts.
But the problem is that in the third chapter „L'arco e la claca", while making
similar statements, Evola sustains that „stigmatise homosexuality as a
corruption is nonsense (because for beings like those we have spoken about,
so-called „natural" intercourses would not be natural, but countrary to their
own nature". Here, in my opinion, Evola fails to consider that „nature" doesn't
design the mere existence of something in the earthly world, but its connection
to normality (the natural order, the normal way the things are in a normal
world), which is here sexual attraction between the two opposite sexes (the only
one which permit procreation and which give an access to the superior dimension
of sex). However, by stating that no repressive policy has a chance to succeed
without getting meanwhile to the primary causes by questioning egalitarianism,
democracy and so on, he is obviously right. More dubious is to me his rejection
of the principle of a repression.