PDA

View Full Version : Why did people hate gays for so long?


Laudenum
06-27-2010, 04:03 PM
Was thinking of this a while back, never posted.

We know that the current period where society is cool with gays is pretty rare (Greek had out gays, and apparently some native American tribes did too), and that for most of human history, gays were persecuted.

My question is why?

friedo
06-27-2010, 04:07 PM
The Old Testament is pretty clear that hot man-on-man action is a sin. The cultures influenced by Judaism, Christianity and Islam developed their senses of morality and their law from religious traditions.

And it's always easy for a culture to oppress a small minority, no matter what your ethical system says.

astro
06-27-2010, 04:10 PM
Most of human history is pre-literate so we have relatively little idea how pre-literate societies treated gays, but IIRC based on the few examples we do have based on anthropological studies of primitive cultures they generally weren't persecuted to nearly the same extent as they have been in modernity. In fact, in thinking about it, most of the really intense historical antipathy towards gays I can recall is generally associated with Judeo-Christian-Islamic societies.

Rigamarole
06-27-2010, 04:10 PM
We know that the current period where society is cool with gays is pretty rare

What makes you think society is cool with gays? A few concentrated areas (most of them urban, coastal, and wealthy) tolerate it to a degree but many many people still hate gays. I don't think you can go around declaring gay tolerance as the normal thing yet.

friedo
06-27-2010, 04:13 PM
What makes you think society is cool with gays? A few concentrated areas (most of them urban, coastal, and wealthy) tolerate it to a degree but many many people still hate gays. I don't think you can go around declaring gay tolerance as the normal thing yet.

On the other hand, we don't tend to throw people in jail for sodomy any more.

Laudenum
06-27-2010, 04:23 PM
The Old Testament is pretty clear that hot man-on-man action is a sin. The cultures influenced by Judaism, Christianity and Islam developed their senses of morality and their law from religious traditions.

And it's always easy for a culture to oppress a small minority, no matter what your ethical system says.

Ok, where did Judaism get the idea then?


There is a theory that a friend told me that women favoured gay men as companions (to the extent of having children with them) and straight men got pissed off and started to ban them. He had no evidence for this theory.

Rigamarole
06-27-2010, 04:25 PM
On the other hand, we don't tend to throw people in jail for sodomy any more.

True, but just as an anecdote (sorry, but I don't think the OP's question can be properly answered here in GQ anyway):

Once I was in the West Hollywood area, which is famous for being extremely gay-friendly. Probably the most gay-friendly place in the country next to San Francisco. (and that's not to mention the U.S. is way more gay-friendly overall than most countries) I was standing in line for something and two men walked down the street by us holding hands. As soon as they were gone it elicited several sneers and negative comments from the people near me. And this was in the supposed paradise of sexual freedom - just for holding hands.

So I don't think society is even close to being "cool with gays". Be careful about representations in TV and film throwing you off, because homosexuals and homosexual-friendly culture is massively disproportionately represented in Hollywood. Doesn't mean that is the prevailing societal attitude.

ZenBeam
06-27-2010, 04:32 PM
OK, so the "cool with gays" period is even rarer than the OP realizes, but that's really background or an aside. His question is "why is it rare?"

ruadh
06-27-2010, 04:33 PM
A Civil Partnership Bill is due to be passed soon in Ireland and for the past few weeks there have been people demonstrating against it. They've engaged in some vicious behaviour such as heckling the Irish AIDS Alliance when they arranged a photoshoot with politicians to highlight AIDS Awareness Day.

The characters involved in this protest include members of Cóir (aka Youth Defence) who are the loopy fringe of the anti-abortion movement. On top of that they are presently involved in a campaign against plans to enshrine the rights of (living) children in the Irish Constitution. They oppose this move because it would overturn the present situation where it is practically impossible to remove children from the marital home, even when they're being abused and neglected.

Put simply, they are fanatical about the nuclear family (with the father at the head of it, of course), and are opposed to anything that they think undermines it. They're loopers, but they do seem to genuinely believe that Human Civilisation As We Know It will fall apart if that structure is not upheld. And homosexuality inherently involves rejecting that structure in favour of another type of relationship, so it's one of the things they're opposed to.

Similar types exist in the US and elsewhere, of course, not just Ireland.

Suburban Plankton
06-27-2010, 04:50 PM
I thought it was just for the same reason that people hated black people, or Jewish people, or blind, left handed dentists...because they're "different". Nothing more, nothing less.

Autolycus
06-27-2010, 04:56 PM
Did?

Laudenum
06-27-2010, 05:01 PM
I thought it was just for the same reason that people hated black people, or Jewish people, or blind, left handed dentists...because they're "different". Nothing more, nothing less.

Black people - justification for slavery

Jews - owed them money, usury, killed Christ

blind, left-handed dentists - sloppy work

Colibri
06-27-2010, 05:02 PM
I think this question is probably too complex to be handled easily in GQ (especially since it involves religion). Moving to GD.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

MichaelEmouse
06-27-2010, 05:24 PM
People tend to be irrational and emotional when it comes to sex. There's a lot of sense of tradition when it comes to the family, gender roles and sexuality. Abnormal (in the neutral sense) people can upset that and cause opposition.

Deviation from the norm often brings hostility, be it women wearing pants in the 50s, women not merely being coy chaste recipients when it comes to sex, sex outside marriage, cohabitation. Gays break many social conventions.


Also, perhaps one clue as to one of the causes is that men are more likely to be homophic than women and that when people speak ill of homosexuality, they usually have male homosexuals in mind. Many men are queasy when they see homosexual men and people will often go from "it feels queasy" to "it's morally wrong".


And don't forget the anal sex.

RickJay
06-27-2010, 05:31 PM
Because

1. They're unusual, and to straight people, hard to understand, and
2. People are afraid of things they don't understand.

Little Nemo
06-27-2010, 05:31 PM
I agree with Suburban Plankton. Xenophobia has always been a human trait (and it's pretty common in other animals as well). Any social group tends to see anyone outside of the group as a potential enemy.

Heterosexual coupling is a fundamental aspect of life in most societies. Those who aren't part of that are seen as different. So homosexuals are seen as being outside of the group and that makes them targets.

jayjay
06-27-2010, 05:35 PM
First of all, the concept of a set sexual orientation is relatively recent. Most people would have considered the idea that there was a subset of people who were homosexual to be very weird and counterintuitive. "Homosexual", the word, wasn't even coined until the 19th Century.

Secondly, even in times and societies were man/man sexual acts were tolerated or expected, it was a very narrow acceptability. The infamous Greek tolerance for it was limited to older men with much younger men, in a mentor/protege relationship. Two adult men who had such a relationship would have been seen as abnormal and wrong, and the "catcher", so to speak, would have been taunted and possibly assaulted for taking the "female" role. This was also true in Rome...in the scattered periods in Roman history when male/male sex was less scandalous, it was the receptive male who was most vilified.

A lot of this had to do with the fact that ancient (and really, all the way up to modern times) societies had a population replacement problem. Everyone was expected to marry and produce children because it was necessary for the society to survive, due to infant and child mortality.

Laudenum
06-27-2010, 05:35 PM
People tend to be irrational and emotional when it comes to sex. There's a lot of sense of tradition when it comes to the family, gender roles and sexuality. Abnormal (in the neutral sense) people can upset that and cause opposition.

Deviation from the norm often brings hostility, be it women wearing pants in the 50s, women not merely being coy chaste recipients when it comes to sex, sex outside marriage, cohabitation. Gays break many social conventions.


Also, perhaps one clue as to one of the causes is that men are more likely to be homophic than women and that when people speak ill of homosexuality, they usually have male homosexuals in mind. Many men are queasy when they see homosexual men and people will often go from "it feels queasy" to "it's morally wrong".


And don't forget the anal sex.

But gays didn't suddenly 'appear' - they existed, and then they were taken against.

Condescending Robot
06-27-2010, 05:42 PM
Secondly, even in times and societies were man/man sexual acts were tolerated or expected, it was a very narrow acceptability. The infamous Greek tolerance for it was limited to older men with much younger men, in a mentor/protege relationship. Two adult men who had such a relationship would have been seen as abnormal and wrong, and the "catcher", so to speak, would have been taunted and possibly assaulted for taking the "female" role. This was also true in Rome...in the scattered periods in Roman history when male/male sex was less scandalous, it was the receptive male who was most vilified.

A lot of this had to do with the fact that ancient (and really, all the way up to modern times) societies had a population replacement problem. Everyone was expected to marry and produce children because it was necessary for the society to survive, due to infant and child mortality.

First paragraph good, second paragraph bad. No one was sitting around planning the society's mores, and even if they were, it's doubtful that anyone who lived 2500 years ago was capable of grasping a concept like "homosexuality in itself is fine but the gays need to also have sham marriages in order to reproduce for the state's benefits."

Greece was a society of child abuse victims, and we all know that child abuse victims become child abusers. Nothing more or less, and nothing to do with homosexuality as we understand it (that is, consensual sexual relationships between adults of the same gender) had anything to do with it.

I can't believe that some people have the "noble savage" blindness that leads to statements like "Native Americans were so tolerant," but I assure you that people in primitive cultures generally are much more scared of deviance than the first world, which is still hardly enlightened about sexual freedom anyway, and being gay in a Western way in any backwards place, whether it's sub-Saharan Africa now or the world as a whole in 1500, is a one-way ticket to a lynching.

MichaelEmouse
06-27-2010, 05:59 PM
But gays didn't suddenly 'appear' - they existed, and then they were taken against.



Do you have a time period in mind for the word "then"? In Europe, it seems that opposition to homosexuality came with the spread of Christianity (Leviticus 20:13 isn't really gay friendly and homosexuals aren't in the habit of being fruitful and multiplying). The Greeks and the Romans looked down on being the bottom but weren't hostile to homosexual relations.

Der Trihs
06-27-2010, 06:04 PM
Many reasons, I think. As has been mentioned, they are different, their behavior involves sex which people are often twitchy about, and they are perceived as hurting population growth. I'll also add that they make great "witch hunt" material; they look like everyone else after all, so you can't prove your innocence if accused.

Hermitian
06-27-2010, 07:18 PM
Wow, I always thought the reason was simple, but no one has mentioned it here.

When I first learned about gay men, I asked my parents "uh... I'm not sure how the parts all fit together..." I was told that men used other men's anuses or mouths.

I considered this so abhorrently gross, I would defiantly not feel comfortable around them. I mean, something must be messed up in their head right? They are plain out crazy!

Its not hard to get from there to hate.

Xenocrates
06-27-2010, 07:21 PM
I don't really have any actual knowledge about this but I would guess that homosexual sex is a thing that has a fairly easy time disgusting people. Sex is integrated with a lot of emotions. And people tend to make negative moral judgments about things that disgust them. I'm able to separate my emotions and moral judgments to some extent so I don't think that male homosexual sex is wrong but it still disgusts me. If I hadn't thought about it a lot I would probably think it was wrong.

panache45
06-27-2010, 07:39 PM
We know that the current period where society is cool with gays . . .

How can I get a one-way ticket to your planet?

Seriously, consider this: The Straight Dope has been fighting ignorance since 1973. It was roughly at the same time that gay people (and pro-gay people) began "fighting ignorance" on a large scale. In both cases, we're headed in the right direction, but "it's taking longer than we thought."

Superhal
06-27-2010, 07:41 PM
Imho, the status of gays reflects the status of women in a society. Of course, "fear of gays" is only and always "fear of homosexual men."

You can tell how homosexuals will be treated in a society by how women are treated. Are women equal in terms of income, behavior, status, etc.? Regardless of how you think women are treated, how they are really treated is reflected in attitudes towards gays.

For example, if you ask a man why they would be opposed to homosexual rights, the usual answer is that they don't want to be approached by gay men on the street, propositioned, or even possibly raped. Why would a straight man have this fear from gay men? The reason, in essence, is that a man doesn't want to get treated like a woman in that society.

Therefore, throughout history, women have had a lower status in society, and men have always feared being treated like women. In fact, being treated like a woman is just about the worst thing to do to a man.

aruvqan
06-27-2010, 07:44 PM
Wow, I always thought the reason was simple, but no one has mentioned it here.

When I first learned about gay men, I asked my parents "uh... I'm not sure how the parts all fit together..." I was told that men used other men's anuses or mouths.

I considered this so abhorrently gross, I would defiantly not feel comfortable around them. I mean, something must be messed up in their head right? They are plain out crazy!

Its not hard to get from there to hate.

From what I understand many gay men are *not* into anal at all, and it is all hands and mouth.

Although, it does boggle me, men are absolutely grosed out at the thought of giving a blow job but they will pretty much badger women into blowing them [and in many cases refusing to *return the favor*]

Sage Rat
06-27-2010, 08:01 PM
Ok, where did Judaism get the idea then?

There is a theory that a friend told me that women favoured gay men as companions (to the extent of having children with them) and straight men got pissed off and started to ban them. He had no evidence for this theory.
It's fairly unknowable. According to the Bible, God just came down from outer space and told Moses the rules, without feeling any particular need to tell us his reasoning. That means that we're left to guess what "his" (or the people who wrote the Bible's) motive was.

Looking through the Bible though, it doesn't seem to be so much that "gay" is bad so much as not doing your best to turn semen into babies is bad. Sex with men, sex with butts, sex with faces, sex with hands, etc. are all cases where it's pretty darn certain that a baby isn't going to be born. This could either descend from a philosophical view about life -- that wasting your seed is equivalent to murder -- or to a tribal view that more Israelites meant a stronger, safer nation and so it was the duty of every man to make as many babies as he could.

astro
06-27-2010, 08:10 PM
From what I understand many gay men are *not* into anal at all, and it is all hands and mouth.

Although, it does boggle me, men are absolutely grosed out at the thought of giving a blow job but they will pretty much badger women into blowing them [and in many cases refusing to *return the favor*]

Is this really how you think at will heterosexual blow jobs with SO's and girlfriends get accomplished in the everyday heterosexual man's world, with "badgering" and lots of oral non-reciprocity?

Wow - Foolish myths about real world sexuality are everywhere.

mr. jp
06-27-2010, 08:10 PM
Because most men find their sex life repulsive, and because humans are flawed that way.

astro
06-27-2010, 08:18 PM
You can tell how homosexuals will be treated in a society by how women are treated. Are women equal in terms of income, behavior, status, etc.? Regardless of how you think women are treated, how they are really treated is reflected in attitudes towards gays.


I think that's a stretch. In the Islamic world, although they lack many freedoms we deem important in the west, women (mothers and wives specifically) have a ton of influence in household matters and how interpersonal relationships are conducted, and they are often respected and venerated by their sons and husbands, and generally deferred to as the authority, in that specific context.

I don't think gays hold any comparable status in Islamic society.

Candyman74
06-27-2010, 08:30 PM
People are tribal and dislike things "not like them". They are often ill-informed about these alleged things. Thus they can hate foreigners, republicans, people of a different color or gender, and people of a different sexual preference.

It's not to do with "gays"; it's to do with "not like me".

Fortunately, people are coming to realise that people of a different color, nationality* or sexual preference are like them.




*Well, OK, not nationality. It's the last acceptable prejudice.

Der Trihs
06-27-2010, 08:38 PM
Imho, the status of gays reflects the status of women in a society. Of course, "fear of gays" is only and always "fear of homosexual men."
Not at all. Societies have accepted gays while treating women like subhumans, and respected women while despising gays. And lesbians have been the target of plenty of fear and hatred; consider the practice of "correctional" rape, where men try to convert a lesbian to heterosexuality by raping her.

I think that's a stretch. In the Islamic world, although they lack many freedoms we deem important in the west, women (mothers and wives specifically) have a ton of influence in household matters and how interpersonal relationships are conducted, and they are often respected and venerated by their sons and husbands, and generally deferred to as the authority, in that specific context.I don't think that's a specifically Islamic thing; I've heard the same about Asian cultures. That while in some women are just considered inferior, in others the custom is for women to be submissive in public but in charge at home. Which I understand comes to a shock to certain foreign men who thought they were getting a stereotyped "submissive Asian wife".

Now that it's brought up, I do think that the near-compulsive need many people have to fit everyone into neat gender categories is another reason for discomfort with homosexuality.

Freudian Slit
06-27-2010, 09:12 PM
Wow, I always thought the reason was simple, but no one has mentioned it here.

When I first learned about gay men, I asked my parents "uh... I'm not sure how the parts all fit together..." I was told that men used other men's anuses or mouths.

I considered this so abhorrently gross, I would defiantly not feel comfortable around them. I mean, something must be messed up in their head right? They are plain out crazy!

Its not hard to get from there to hate.

But don't most kids think that oral sex/anal sex is gross between heterosexual couples? Hell, kids think that even regular sex is pretty gross before they become sexually mature.

aruvqan
06-27-2010, 09:24 PM
Is this really how you think at will heterosexual blow jobs with SO's and girlfriends get accomplished in the everyday heterosexual man's world, with "badgering" and lots of oral non-reciprocity?

Wow - Foolish myths about real world sexuality are everywhere.

i guess the various women i went to college with and sat around discussing men arent to be trusted ...I know that because I have had TMJ all my life, BJs are very uncomfortable for me to perform, and without an exception for about the entire 4 years I was in college every guy I dated wanted to be blown, and despite my TMJ, they got really freaking snotty about it. When confronted with the ill do you if you do me, got an almost universal whinge of but you pee out of *there* I think I had 2 guys perform cunilingus on me voluntarily that were under the age of 30. The pressure to blow was pretty much universal to the female friends I had in school, and the pretty much universal reluctance to reciprocate as well.

even sven
06-27-2010, 09:26 PM
Actually, I think the replacement rate theory has a lot of weight.

In a lot of societies- from modern Sub-Saharan Africa to ancient China- some level of homosexuality was accepted as long as one also had a family. You'd be surprised how many gay and lesbian people I met in remote African villages. But for small-scale farmers, each child adds to the family's ability to work the land and raises the standard of living. Furthermore, parents count on their children to support them in their old age. So to "opt out" of a standard family life would endanger the well-being of the entire family. They don't care if you are "fulfilled" or not- having and raising children is a duty, not a choice. But to some degree people are willing to turn a blind eye to what you do during your off time. I don't think any society has not had a thriving informal gay scene...even modern Saudi Arabia.

For evangelical religions (which, if you think about it, is basically Islam and Christianity) it's even more obvious. More babies means more followers,

One thing that may be a factor is that the few who can be openly gay and not go with the sham marriage must be fabulously wealthy by local standards. I know this caused a lot of confusion when I was in Cameroon. They saw that the few openly gay people were wealthy. They saw that their own corrupt politicians and gangsters were wealthy. They figured gay people must be doing something to get that much money, and since it was clearly a secret it must be something bad. The explanation they can up with is that gay people are members of secret cults.

Damuri Ajashi
06-27-2010, 09:26 PM
Imho, the status of gays reflects the status of women in a society. Of course, "fear of gays" is only and always "fear of homosexual men."

You can tell how homosexuals will be treated in a society by how women are treated. Are women equal in terms of income, behavior, status, etc.? Regardless of how you think women are treated, how they are really treated is reflected in attitudes towards gays.

For example, if you ask a man why they would be opposed to homosexual rights, the usual answer is that they don't want to be approached by gay men on the street, propositioned, or even possibly raped. Why would a straight man have this fear from gay men? The reason, in essence, is that a man doesn't want to get treated like a woman in that society.

Therefore, throughout history, women have had a lower status in society, and men have always feared being treated like women. In fact, being treated like a woman is just about the worst thing to do to a man.

Well aside from the whole rape thing, I'm not sure how true that is.

In some societies, shaman were frequently gay men or at least bisexual, the blend of masculine and feminine made them more attuned to the spirit world (or so people thought). Being homosexual was not a big deal in many Asian societies as long as you could perform your filial duties and provide your parents with grandchildren (preferably male children), if you were a lesbian then people generally didn't even notice as long as you got pregnant. If your homosexuality interfered with producing children then it became a big deal.

I think the hatred people have of homosexuality is a combination of everything people have mentioned, but I will add one more thing, demagoguery.

We have seen people try to blame homosexuals for everything from 9/11 to Katrina to the earthquake in Haiti, there is nothing that strengthens a group more than a common enemy, we're not really allowed to pick on Blacks and jews anymore so we blame everything on the gays.

When people ask why bad things happen to good people, someone comes along as says, its is God's righteous anger at our permissive attitudes towards homosexuality (somewhere along the line it became too difficult to try and explain original sin or the lessons of Job and it became easier to blame the gays).

Damuri Ajashi
06-27-2010, 09:32 PM
From what I understand many gay men are *not* into anal at all, and it is all hands and mouth.

Although, it does boggle me, men are absolutely grosed out at the thought of giving a blow job but they will pretty much badger women into blowing them [and in many cases refusing to *return the favor*]

Well men are not as grossed out at the thought of licking pussy as they are at the idea of sucking cock. I think its one of the consequences of heterosexuality. I think the "not returning the favor" attitude is the result of being male. If a gay man could get away with having his cock sucked without sucking cock, wouldn't he try, despite how much porn stars seem to enjoy the sucking of cock, how much fun could it really be to jerk your head back and forth like a chicken pecking for seeds while a penis stabs the back of your throat?

Damuri Ajashi
06-27-2010, 09:48 PM
Wow - Foolish myths about real world sexuality are everywhere.

I jibes pretty well with my experiences through college. After college it was a routine part of foreplay... then I got married.

consider the practice of "correctional" rape, where men try to convert a lesbian to heterosexuality by raping her.

I can't imagine that its very effective at converting lesbians into anything other than lesbians with kids. Incredible cunnilingus from blind man with a swimmer's body is probably a better bet.

Wow, I always thought the reason was simple, but no one has mentioned it here.

When I first learned about gay men, I asked my parents "uh... I'm not sure how the parts all fit together..." I was told that men used other men's anuses or mouths.

I don't know. A lot of guys I know really like the idea of getting their cock sucked or sticking it in a girl's ass and they are raging homophobes.

Thudlow Boink
06-27-2010, 10:13 PM
First of all, the concept of a set sexual orientation is relatively recent. Most people would have considered the idea that there was a subset of people who were homosexual to be very weird and counterintuitive. "Homosexual", the word, wasn't even coined until the 19th Century.I am not a historian, but this is my understanding as well. Which makes the OP's whole question somewhat anachronistic.

Rigamarole
06-27-2010, 10:26 PM
I think it goes beyond just being "different" and can't be explained away by the "not like us" theory. We have an evolutionary drive to reproduce - the reptilian brain reasons that anyone lacking that drive must be damaged in some way and they are actually hurting our species' chances of survival by failing/refusing to reproduce.

When you ask any question that starts with "why" and has "people" in it, you have to look at the reptilian brain theory. It usually contains the answer.

panache45
06-27-2010, 10:38 PM
If a gay man could get away with having his cock sucked without sucking cock, wouldn't he try, despite how much porn stars seem to enjoy the sucking of cock, how much fun could it really be to jerk your head back and forth like a chicken pecking for seeds while a penis stabs the back of your throat?
First of all, there are many gay men (and straight women) who enjoy sucking cock, but for a variety of reasons don't want reciprocation. I am eternally grateful that there are men like that in the world. :)

I have even known some straight men who enjoyed sucking cock.

And you seem to have a rather distorted notion of what oral sex is like. You've either been watching the wrong porn, or never been with anyone who enjoyed doing it.

sqweels
06-27-2010, 11:43 PM
People are afraid that it's contagious.

Sexual arousal is a rather involuntary response. The existence of homosexuals makes homosexuality a reality, so heterosexuals worry that exposure to it might someday trigger a response and they too will turn gay, with all the disgusting implications.

So they act out with hostility to the idea, to reassure themselves as well as others.

FriarTed
06-28-2010, 05:34 AM
It's fairly unknowable. According to the Bible, God just came down from outer space and told Moses the rules, without feeling any particular need to tell us his reasoning. That means that we're left to guess what "his" (or the people who wrote the Bible's) motive was.

Looking through the Bible though, it doesn't seem to be so much that "gay" is bad so much as not doing your best to turn semen into babies is bad. Sex with men, sex with butts, sex with faces, sex with hands, etc. are all cases where it's pretty darn certain that a baby isn't going to be born. This could either descend from a philosophical view about life -- that wasting your seed is equivalent to murder -- or to a tribal view that more Israelites meant a stronger, safer nation and so it was the duty of every man to make as many babies as he could.

Except there are actually no Biblical laws against the bolded area- Rabbinical & Church teachings, yes- Biblical laws, no.

willthekittensurvive?
06-28-2010, 06:58 AM
I have even known some straight men who enjoyed sucking cock.

.

really flexible men I bet :)

FoieGrasIsEvil
06-28-2010, 08:09 AM
My question is why?

Because its an evolutionary cul-de-sac, and religions in the past needed followers so they forbade it, and now that the world is more populated and advanced, mostly western cultures have to a degree eschewed religion, less people give a shit what two other people do in their private lives?

Punisher 11B
06-28-2010, 08:28 AM
Try to plug a lamp into a lamp and see if it works.

Lanzy
06-28-2010, 08:33 AM
Because I was told to hate them.

I was raised in a little backwards almost out of time town on a tobacco farm in East TN.

My immediate family told me to hate gays, blacks, city slickers, rock music, non-fried foods, and most of all atheists. It took me a while to ask why, and I got answers that were as ignorant as the premise. As I got older I was told I was wrong to read books for fun, sing anything but hymns, dance ever, and women naturally hated sex and if someone didn't use a good lock they didn't care about it.

Then I went to college, the first in all generations in memory of my family to do so. Of my graduating class, less than 5% went to college of any kind. Then I joined the military and saw some of the rest of the world, and in my late 20's I just began to realize the ignorance I was raised with, by 30 I rejected everything. At my 20 year HS reunion I found that at least 90% of my class never left that town and pretty much were as mired in stupid beliefs as when I left.

All this rambling, if you made it this far is my answer.

Because people are raised in ignorance and they tend to stay that way because it is hard to fight your way out of it. I suspect to maybe lesser degrees and slightly larger towns this holds true.

kayaker
06-28-2010, 08:44 AM
On the other hand, we don't tend to throw people in jail for sodomy any more.

While we may not throw people in jail for sodomy, we definitely put people in jail accepting that they will likely be sodomized.

Marley23
06-28-2010, 08:50 AM
While we may not throw people in jail for sodomy, we definitely put people in jail accepting that they will likely be sodomized.
That doesn't really have anything to do with the issue. I think a better response to friedo's point is that anti-sodomy laws are still on the books and were only ruled unconstitutional a few years ago. And just the other day people on this board were discussed efforts (at least in Texas) to start enforcing those laws again.

Damuri Ajashi
06-28-2010, 09:35 AM
really flexible men I bet :)

Those men never make it out of bed in the morning.

Damuri Ajashi
06-28-2010, 09:47 AM
Because I was told to hate them.
...
All this rambling, if you made it this far is my answer.

Because people are raised in ignorance and they tend to stay that way because it is hard to fight your way out of it. I suspect to maybe lesser degrees and slightly larger towns this holds true.

I know a lot of well educated folks who hold those same backwards beliefs and have concocted rationales for why they are reasonable beliefs. In my totally anecdotal experience, doctors seem somewhat homophobic with higher frequency than other well educated folks, not a racist bunch in the crowd, but more than half seem homophobic. Its weird, they have learned the lessons of history and they understand why it is wrong to be racist but they don't understand that the same rationale appplies to homophobia.

I figured doctors would be most likely to understand the human condition but apparently not.

Lanzy
06-28-2010, 10:16 AM
I know a lot of well educated folks who hold those same backwards beliefs and have concocted rationales for why they are reasonable beliefs. In my totally anecdotal experience, doctors seem somewhat homophobic with higher frequency than other well educated folks, not a racist bunch in the crowd, but more than half seem homophobic. Its weird, they have learned the lessons of history and they understand why it is wrong to be racist but they don't understand that the same rationale appplies to homophobia.

I figured doctors would be most likely to understand the human condition but apparently not.

A lot of educated people are exposed to a lot of different world views. Its like being exposed to the measles, it doesn't always take.

Sage Rat
06-28-2010, 10:25 AM
Except there are actually no Biblical laws against the bolded area- Rabbinical & Church teachings, yes- Biblical laws, no.
Sodomy is forbidden. I am aware that the modern position is that the crime of the Sodomites is unknown and unknowable so to say that "sodomy" equates to sex that has no chance of producing babies is on a loose foundation. But, so far as I'm aware there's no evidence that "sodomy" ever meant anything different, so while the Bible might not describe what the Sodomites did, that the church had rules against these sorts of sexual acts from times ancient in spite of no clear Biblical text, and that people sure seem to have thought that the Sodomites were sexually deviant from times ancient both indicate to me that sodomy means what we think it means, that it always has, and that the Bible forbids it. Retroactively deciding that the word "sodomy" doesn't have any meaning is just being intellectually dishonest.

shiftless
06-28-2010, 10:47 AM
Because it's hard enough trying to figure out about hetero sex when the object of your attraction is right there in the open and there are social guides to help us approach one another. Hetero sex is complex enough for most of us. There's power politics involved in the dating game too. So man-on-man sex can seem out of place and icky, sorry, when you first stubble across it, like when I was 15 and an old guy tried to stick his hand down my pants. The first time I saw two guys making out on a street corner it was a WTF moment. Having no attraction for other men the very concept of two guys enjoying that just didn't make sense to me. These days I know enough gay people to understand that it is real and not some affectation but that doesn't mean that I understand the attraction.

So, the hate is based on the intensity of the subject (sex) and the lack of understanding of its many, many complexities. Gay people have been pushed into the shadows for a long time. I wasn't taught to dislike gay people; I wasn't taught anything at all about them nor did I come across many instances where the subject came up because nobody talked about it. These days the subject ( both hetero and gay sex) is a lot more open so that we can comfortably talk about it and some of the hate has gone away. Maybe in another generation it won't be an issue if we can avoid pushing people back into the closet. I see a huge difference in the conversations I've had with my son about sex (so many aspects to cover) and the complete lack of information in my generation.

jayjay
06-28-2010, 11:10 AM
Sodomy is forbidden. I am aware that the modern position is that the crime of the Sodomites is unknown and unknowable so to say that "sodomy" equates to sex that has no chance of producing babies is on a loose foundation. But, so far as I'm aware there's no evidence that "sodomy" ever meant anything different, so while the Bible might not describe what the Sodomites did, that the church had rules against these sorts of sexual acts from times ancient in spite of no clear Biblical text, and that people sure seem to have thought that the Sodomites were sexually deviant from times ancient both indicate to me that sodomy means what we think it means, that it always has, and that the Bible forbids it. Retroactively deciding that the word "sodomy" doesn't have any meaning is just being intellectually dishonest.

Actually, the "modern interpretation" is that the "crime of the Sodomites" was inhospitality and lack of compassion. And, frankly, isn't it about time that the modern world started to put ignorant Iron Age superstition about sexuality behind it? I'm not asking 5000 year old sheepherders for advice on how to diversify my portfolio. Why would I ask them for advice on who to sleep with?

Czarcasm
06-28-2010, 11:15 AM
I'm not asking 5000 year old sheepherders for advice on how to diversify my portfolio. Why would I ask them for advice on who to sleep with?Remember- "Baaa!" means "No!"

Sage Rat
06-28-2010, 11:33 AM
Actually, the "modern interpretation" is that the "crime of the Sodomites" was inhospitality and lack of compassion.
True, that skipped my mind. And I agree that it is theoretically possible that this was the intended original reading. But so far as I'm aware,* there's no particular evidence that anyone ever believed that until modern day. At the very least, it has been the stance of most of the European and Islamic world for the last couple of thousand years.

* And feel free to point out any evidence to the contrary.

Thudlow Boink
06-28-2010, 12:53 PM
True, that skipped my mind. And I agree that it is theoretically possible that this was the intended original reading. But so far as I'm aware,* there's no particular evidence that anyone ever believed that until modern day. At the very least, it has been the stance of most of the European and Islamic world for the last couple of thousand years.

* And feel free to point out any evidence to the contrary.Well, there is Ezekiel 16:49: "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."

Sage Rat
06-28-2010, 03:25 PM
Well, there is Ezekiel 16:49: "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."
I do understand that there is text in the Bible which supports the modern interpretation, but given that there's no evidence that anyone even came up with that interpretation until modern day makes it seem unlikely that this is the accurate or a meaningful reading. Ezekiel 16 is about women, for example. It has nothing to do with semen, procreation, or anything. It supposes a reason for God being angry at Sodom's women, but doesn't comment on the men, and it seems more likely that God would destroy a city for what its men do than what its women do. Ezekiel 16 also spends most of its time talking about prostitution, promiscuity, and having sex for pleasure's sake. After accusing the Israelite women of this, it says that "Your older sister was Samaria, who lived to the north of you with her daughters; and your younger sister, who lived to the south of you with her daughters, was Sodom. You not only walked in their ways and copied their detestable practices, but in all your ways you soon became more depraved than they." (Bolding added.) I.e. the Samarians and the Sodomites practiced prostitution, promiscuity, and sex for pleasure's sake. It continues on to point out that the Sodomites were arrogant, etc. but that seems to be an accusation of stuff they did that the Samarians didn't, not the sole nor principal accusation (going by the quantity of text that deals with the various issues).

While this still doesn't get into "sodomy", it still seems to be fairly concerned with sex and sexual license. And it seems just as likely that sodomy doesn't come into it because it's a discussion of women.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2016&version=NIV

Arcite
06-28-2010, 08:27 PM
True, that skipped my mind. And I agree that it is theoretically possible that this was the intended original reading. But so far as I'm aware,* there's no particular evidence that anyone ever believed that until modern day. At the very least, it has been the stance of most of the European and Islamic world for the last couple of thousand years.

Not to mention one of the New Testament authors, Jude (http://esv.scripturetext.com/jude/1-6.htm), who clearly seemed to think that at least part of the reason for Sodom's and Gomorrah's destruction was their sexual immorality:

6And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day— 7just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire,d serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

panache45
06-28-2010, 09:48 PM
The question should not be "What does the Bible say?" The question should be "Why do people believe it?"

AWB
06-29-2010, 07:33 PM
i guess the various women i went to college with and sat around discussing men arent to be trusted ...I know that because I have had TMJ all my life...

Most the people I've ever met have TMJ (temporomandibular joints) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TMJ).

BJs are very uncomfortable for me to perform,

Sounds like you have TMD (Temporomandibular joint disorder) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporomandibular_joint_disorder).

and without an exception for about the entire 4 years I was in college every guy I dated wanted to be blown, and despite my TMJ, they got really freaking snotty about it. When confronted with the ill do you if you do me, got an almost universal whinge of but you pee out of *there* I think I had 2 guys perform cunilingus on me voluntarily that were under the age of 30. The pressure to blow was pretty much universal to the female friends I had in school, and the pretty much universal reluctance to reciprocate as well.

No pun intended, but it sounds like your college boyfriends were all pricks. I never pressure my GFs for BJ, but if the mood struck them, great. I did reciprocate, and not just when they began.

AWB
06-29-2010, 07:36 PM
Sodomy is forbidden. I am aware that the modern position is that the crime of the Sodomites is unknown and unknowable so to say that "sodomy" equates to sex that has no chance of producing babies is on a loose foundation. But, so far as I'm aware there's no evidence that "sodomy" ever meant anything different, so while the Bible might not describe what the Sodomites did, that the church had rules against these sorts of sexual acts from times ancient in spite of no clear Biblical text, and that people sure seem to have thought that the Sodomites were sexually deviant from times ancient both indicate to me that sodomy means what we think it means, that it always has, and that the Bible forbids it. Retroactively deciding that the word "sodomy" doesn't have any meaning is just being intellectually dishonest.

I always wondered what gomorrahizing was. Something so bad God destroyed a whole city, but so unspeakable that it wasn't even euphemized.

Der Trihs
06-29-2010, 07:53 PM
Because its an evolutionary cul-de-sac, That seems unlikely given that it is both relatively common (compared to genuine defects), and the fact it appears in so many species. It seems likely that a certain amount of homosexual behavior is either desirable (in the Darwinian sense) for its own sake , or is a side effect of something else that is.

SantaMan
06-29-2010, 08:23 PM
Wasn't there a discussion recently on how addiioinal support by non parent relatives could be an advantage? As in, one child supported by parents and non-reproducing aunts and uncles might have a better shot than two kids supported only by their respective parents?

Also, in olden times, there was the "homosexual acts are associated with temple idolatry" could be a factor.

Antinor01
06-30-2010, 09:20 PM
I don't really have any actual knowledge about this but I would guess that homosexual sex is a thing that has a fairly easy time disgusting people. Sex is integrated with a lot of emotions. And people tend to make negative moral judgments about things that disgust them. I'm able to separate my emotions and moral judgments to some extent so I don't think that male homosexual sex is wrong but it still disgusts me. If I hadn't thought about it a lot I would probably think it was wrong.

I feel the same way about heterosexual sex. ;)

panache45
07-01-2010, 01:20 AM
I always wondered what gomorrahizing was.

Whatever it was, I'm sure I've done it (or had it done to me).

And yes, there are things you heteros do that turn my stomach. And if you think that male-male sex is disgusting, remember that there are damn few things 2 men can do that can't be done by a man and a woman (e.g. docking).

AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet
07-01-2010, 04:05 AM
Remember- "Baaa!" means "No!" Does Hal Briston know this? :p:D

Steve MB
07-01-2010, 07:56 AM
People are afraid that it's contagious.

Sexual arousal is a rather involuntary response. The existence of homosexuals makes homosexuality a reality, so heterosexuals worry that exposure to it might someday trigger a response and they too will turn gay, with all the disgusting implications.

So they act out with hostility to the idea, to reassure themselves as well as others.

Note the number of vocal anti-gay politicians and preachers who turn out to be closet cases.

Steve MB
07-01-2010, 08:02 AM
Actually, the "modern interpretation" is that the "crime of the Sodomites" was inhospitality and lack of compassion.

That's not a "modern interpretation" -- that's what it explicitly says right there in the Bible:

Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw

True, that skipped my mind. And I agree that it is theoretically possible that this was the intended original reading. But so far as I'm aware,* there's no particular evidence that anyone ever believed that until modern day. At the very least, it has been the stance of most of the European and Islamic world for the last couple of thousand years.

* And feel free to point out any evidence to the contrary.

As you wish; see above.

I do understand that there is text in the Bible which supports the modern interpretation

For values of "supports" equal to "unambiguously declares to be true".

jayjay
07-01-2010, 08:42 AM
That's not a "modern interpretation" -- that's what it explicitly says right there in the Bible:

You'll note that the phrase "modern interpretation" is in quotes. I was using Sage Rat's words in an ironic way.

Sage Rat
07-01-2010, 08:45 AM
That's not a "modern interpretation" -- that's what it explicitly says right there in the Bible:
Hey, if you're happy to ignore all context and just pick out a single sentence from a full page of text, be my guest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quote_mining#Quote_mining

Which of the following points would you unequivocally state is impossible to be true?

1) Ezekiel 16 is a discussion of women, not people in general. Is that impossible?
2) God would only destroy a city if both its men and women had sinned, not if only the women had. Is that unthinkable?
3) Ezekiel 16 is a critique of the Israelites of the time at which Ezekiel was speaking, and hence stressed the sins that he felt the Israelites were committing at that particular time, not the sins that the Sodomites were more generally known for historically. Is that impossible?
4) Ezekiel may not have known what sins were committed by the Sodomites, and simply attached whatever sins he wanted to lambaste to the name Sodom. God striking you down from the sky is, after all, a pretty good motivator to not do that sort of thing. Is that impossible?
5) He was comparing Sodom with Samaria when he pointed out the "hospitality" sins. Is this reading impossible?
6) He accused the Sodomites of prostitution, infidelity, and other sexual misdemeanors. Is this reading impossible?

Reading through the whole chapter, to me it sounds like a man ranting against the sins of the day, not the sins of the past. To me, it sounds like he's talking about women in particular, which would preclude any chance of mentioning sodomy no matter how hard he would try, without going entirely off topic. Sure, he accuses the Sodomites of being inhospitable and makes it out as the crime of the century, but that's because he's talking to a group of women, and being hospitable was their only job in life beyond pushing out babies in Ancient Israel.

My version of events explains everything we see in Ezekiel 16 plus it jives with the history of the word Sodomy. Your version of events has Ezekiel tangentially throwing out historical trivia about inhospitableness midway through a rant about prostitution, infidelity, licentiousness, vanity, and egotism. And, it conflicts with the history of the word Sodomy. Why is your version, lifted bodily out of all context, supposed to be more believable?

Steve MB
07-01-2010, 01:33 PM
1) Ezekiel 16 is a discussion of women, not people in general. Is that impossible?
Impossible, no; irrelevant, yes.

2) God would only destroy a city if both its men and women had sinned, not if only the women had.
Cite?

3) Ezekiel 16 is a critique of the Israelites of the time at which Ezekiel was speaking, and hence stressed the sins that he felt the Israelites were committing at that particular time, not the sins that the Sodomites were more generally known for historically.
Ezekiel believed that contemporary Israel was free of proscribed sexual behaviors? I find that a bit difficult to believe.

4) Ezekiel may not have known what sins were committed by the Sodomites
Ezekiel was ignorant of the religious writings and traditions handed down to his era? That would make it a bit difficult to take him seriously as any sort of prophet.

5) He was comparing Sodom with Samaria when he pointed out the "hospitality" sins. Is this reading impossible?
See answer #1.

6) He accused the Sodomites of prostitution, infidelity, and other sexual misdemeanors.
And this has what, exactly, to do with "sodomy" as you are defining the term?

it sounds like he's talking about women in particular, which would preclude any chance of mentioning sodomy
The women he was talking about had no tongues? Was this an earlier Divine punishment for some sin?

Damuri Ajashi
07-01-2010, 02:26 PM
A lot of educated people are exposed to a lot of different world views. Its like being exposed to the measles, it doesn't always take.

Yeah, I still don't understand the clustering of homophobia that i have observed in physicians, anyone else nnotice that?

Sage Rat
07-01-2010, 05:42 PM
Impossible, no; irrelevant, yes.
You stated that the one sentence was unambiguously a discussion of everything wrong with Sodom that ever mattered. If it's a discussion of only the women of Sodom, then it's not about everything wrong with Sodom. A discussion of male-on-male sex would simply never come up in a discussion about women's sins, for example.

Cite?
Given that God said, in Genesis, that he wouldn't destroy the town if he could find more than X righteous people, it seems reasonable to believe that he was a bit choosy about blithely destroying a town where half of everyone wasn't particularly sinful.

Ezekiel believed that contemporary Israel was free of proscribed sexual behaviors? I find that a bit difficult to believe.
Ezekiel, judging by the text, believed that the women of the time were still committing the sins of prostitution, infidelity, licentiousness, vanity, inhospitality, etc. Hence, he talks about them.

Ezekiel was ignorant of the religious writings and traditions handed down to his era? That would make it a bit difficult to take him seriously as any sort of prophet.
I'm not religious. The idea that Ezekiel was just a guy, limited to what was known in his day, doesn't seem particularly implausible. According to the Bible chronology, Lot would have lived sometime between 1400 and 1200 BC, six to eight hundred years before Ezekiel was preaching. If it was a historic event to begin with, I'd vote that's plenty of time for the people to have lost all knowledge of what it was all about.

See answer #1.
If he's comparing the two, then he's not saying that these are the principal crimes of Sodom, he's saying that this particular subset is the one that isn't shared with Samaria but is also, of course, "really bad to do girls". If it was impossible for this reading to be true, saying that it's an unambiguous statement of Sodom's true crime would be reasonable. If it's an entirely plausible reading, "unambiguous" it ain't.

And this has what, exactly, to do with "sodomy" as you are defining the term?
Because, if he was simply pointing out what sins the Sodomites had that the Samarians didn't in your one, singled out sentence, then the principal sins that he talks about and ascribes to the Sodomites include all the other sins talked about through all of Ezekiel 16. Which, again, doesn't make the stance that the destruction of Sodom was unambiguously about inhospitality. It could well have been about the infidelity and licentiousness that he accused the Sodomites of a sentence earlier.

The women he was talking about had no tongues? Was this an earlier Divine punishment for some sin?
The ancient definition of sodomy seems principally to have been one of ejaculating (i.e. releasing semen) for purposes other than making babies. This includes anal sex, oral sex, masturbation, pulling out, etc. Tongues, last I heard, do not spray semen.

Kobal2
07-01-2010, 06:04 PM
Imho, the status of gays reflects the status of women in a society. Of course, "fear of gays" is only and always "fear of homosexual men."

You can tell how homosexuals will be treated in a society by how women are treated. Are women equal in terms of income, behavior, status, etc.? Regardless of how you think women are treated, how they are really treated is reflected in attitudes towards gays.

For example, if you ask a man why they would be opposed to homosexual rights, the usual answer is that they don't want to be approached by gay men on the street, propositioned, or even possibly raped. Why would a straight man have this fear from gay men? The reason, in essence, is that a man doesn't want to get treated like a woman in that society.

Therefore, throughout history, women have had a lower status in society, and men have always feared being treated like women. In fact, being treated like a woman is just about the worst thing to do to a man.

I don't think that's accurate, or at least not universally so (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shudo#Terminology) (even though Japanese women are, to this day, very much second rate citizen)

Damuri Ajashi
07-02-2010, 09:56 AM
Yeah they have some pretty liberated ideas about sex.

Sailboat
07-06-2010, 06:42 PM
On the other hand, we don't tend to throw people in jail for sodomy any more.

I think a better response to friedo's point is that anti-sodomy laws are still on the books and were only ruled unconstitutional a few years ago. And just the other day people on this board were discussed efforts (at least in Texas) to start enforcing those laws again.

My wife's nephew was charged with having anal sex with his girlfriend. She was "of majority." legally old enough to have sex with, and it is legal to have anal sex in Virginia -- but for because of the anti-sodomy laws, the "age of majority" is higher for anal sex, and he ran afoul of that. It was not (yet) legal to have sex with her in that way.

That specific charge was dropped -- I do not know the mind of the prosecutors, but they declined to put the girl on the stand for any reason, and dropped all charges depending on assertions she had made, so I would assume they found her a poor witness and wanted to keep her out of cross-examination (as opposed to deciding not to enforce the anti-sodomy provision of the age of consent).

newcomer
07-06-2010, 09:56 PM
I remember reading some historical social study that looked into the matter and came up with some observations, possibly self-evident. For example, homosexual hate through history is male led with the loudest having their own issues that needed constant reminding. Then, considering that male’s sex perspective and big-time turn-on is the perception of and actual power (penetration being the key exhibit of that power) during sexual act with a woman the idea of any male being sexually subjugated by another male arouses (pun not intended) sense of weakness and unmanliness. One that needs to be addressed. Also, even today, the ultimate act of shame upon a young male is penetration by a foreign object performed by heterosexual males. Because they know that the victim knows how shameful of an act that is. I think it goes very deep into dark alleys of male psych difficult to articulate.

That is why, I’m guessing, unwanted attention and overt signaling by a homosexual person to a heterosexual man sometime ends up very badly.

Anyway, man written God’s Books only hyperbolized essence of the male herd mentality and its sexual power supreme.

Colophon
07-07-2010, 07:02 AM
My wife's nephew was charged with having anal sex with his girlfriend. She was "of majority." legally old enough to have sex with, and it is legal to have anal sex in Virginia -- but for because of the anti-sodomy laws, the "age of majority" is higher for anal sex, and he ran afoul of that. It was not (yet) legal to have sex with her in that way.
If I might ask... how did anyone find out in order to press charges? :confused:

Lamia
07-07-2010, 08:28 PM
I don't think that's accurate, or at least not universally so (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shudo#Terminology) (even though Japanese women are, to this day, very much second rate citizen)That article paints an IMHO unrealistic picture of the acceptance or even visibility of homosexuality in Japan. There are a few celebrities who are openly gay, but most Japanese people don't personally know any "out" homosexuals. There's not even much of a gay club scene outside Tokyo and Osaka. When I lived in Japan I was told more than once that until relatively recently (the past 50-100 years) there were no homosexuals in Japan at all. The fact that there are gay Japanese people now is attributed largely to foreign influence.

In my experience the Japanese do not consider homosexuality to be sinful or immoral, but many think of it as being unnatural, disgusting, or just plain weird. It's somewhat similar to how people who are into S&M or have sexual fetishes are regarded in the US -- as long as everything is consensual then most other people don't have any interest in preventing these non-mainstream sexual behaviors, but they find the subject at best embarrassing and would generally prefer not to hear about it. The big exception is some women who (thanks largely to Sex & The City) think it would be nice to have a gay guy as a friend to go shopping with. Several women told me they'd like to have such a friend, but admitted there was little chance they'd ever meet such a fellow unless they went to Tokyo or Osaka first.

What seems to throw off a lot of Westerners is that the Japanese consider same-sex crushes among adolescents, especially those in single-sex schools, to be fairly normal...as a phase. Kids are expected to grow out of this by high school age. Where I think Japan is considerably ahead of the US is in acceptance of transgendered people, but that's really a different subject.

ETA: I should qualify this by saying I haven't lived in Japan since 2004, so it's possible things have changed a lot since then. But that's not my impression based on the Japanese friends I'm in touch with or the Japanese exchange students I've met since 2004.

Chronos
07-09-2010, 05:44 PM
Quoth panache45:
I have even known some straight men who enjoyed sucking cock.That must be an interesting definition of "straight".

panache45
07-09-2010, 11:56 PM
Quoth panache45:That must be an interesting definition of "straight".

It's only "interesting" if you define a straight man as one who's attracted to clitorises, and a gay man as one who's attracted to penises.

There are men who are attracted to women, and not attracted to men . . . yet enjoy having sex with a penis (not their own). They are not gay and they are not bi.

Autolycus
07-10-2010, 01:42 AM
There are men who are attracted to women, and not attracted to men . . . yet enjoy having sex with a penis (not their own). They are not gay and they are not bi.

I feel I'm going to regret jumping into this quagmire (giggity), but last I checked, only men normally have a penis. If you enjoy having sex with a penis, then I'd say that makes you different than what society calls 'straight.' I grant you that there's lots of wiggle room, and everyone's allowed to define their own sexuality. My only point is that a guy who regularly enjoys sucking cock falls out of what society considers straight, and IMO rightfully so.