>>3973839
I'll go at this from a more broad point of view rather than one-by-one. First, yeah, Jack Donovan is a homosexual man, but "Blood Brotherhood" in particular is not about imposing a revisionist, homoerotic subtext on male-male relationships. The book documents customs and literature from centuries past that demonstrate just how important alliances, friendships, and bonds between men were considered. An example he uses is Fei Wei and Chi Ch'and in which he write: "The two men broke out in tears, and threw away their bows. They bowed down low upon the ground before each other, and asked to become father and son. They both let blood flow from their arms, and took an oath never to reveal the secrets of their art to any other man." Him being gay himself has nothing to do with his and Nathan F. Miller's research on male affectionalism, as all they're trying to prove is that a special camaraderie that once was present throughout the world is now lost. Hence why he would also write "The Way of Men" in which he stresses the importance of forming a "gang" with like-minded men.
>CS Lewis did protest against Freudian notions that eros must lurk at the bottom of every relationship between males, but also acknowledged the homoeroticism of antiquity, of Shakespeare's sonnets, and his own school experiences.
No one is denying that homoeroticism or homosexuality was present in the past. What myself and others are trying to say is that Abraham Lincoln and Joshua Speed sharing a bed together and even writing "romantic" letters of affection to each other was nothing unique to their relationship, in fact, it was quite common and says nothing about one's sexuality.