gobear, I think, mentioned in another thread, he’d like to start a debate about the Origins of anti-homosexual prejudices.
Well, it sounds interesting to me.
When did this originate?
Why is it mostly against gay men ?
I used to go rollerskating when young. They had couple skates, and sometimes 2 girls would couple skate just so they wouldn’t have to sit it out.
No biggie. But no guys would ever do this.
Why is it such a bad thing for boys but not girls?
The origins?
Churches? Would churches have started this because of the belief of wanting lots of children in the population (back then)?
Or is it just that its
different , and people don’t understand or want to understand something thats different?
I can’t possibly answer with anything like the eloquence, reference and range of AHunter3’s link; a great read, thanks for that
I’ve failed before to provide a cite for one particular theory which struck a chord with me - I think it was from Hate Crimes: Confronting Violence Against Lesbians and Gay Men but I don’t have access to a copy so can’t check. The premise was that within a heterocentric culture, the societal gender roles are so entrenched within the culture’s setup, that anything going against those ‘definites’ makes the society at large uncomfortable. So, in our culture, the overriding message for men is that their role is to be dominant, the aggressor, the possessor. For one man to allow another to possess him sexually, putting him in the position of submission, goes against what our society expects from men. Men are not supposed to be submissive, it goes against the ingrained gender role subscribed to him. It’s not a specific distaste with anal sex, which I know many people feel and will attribute the ‘EEEWW!!! factor’ towards homosexually to; it’s more that it is a man submitting to the act, than the act itself.
There are different cultures and societies that only consider the submissive or bottom partner in a homosexual encounter to be the ‘gay’ one, the one going against his gender-specified cultural role; and that the possessor or top remains within a ‘masculine’ idiom and so is not a subject for distaste, unlike the bottom. I cited another study in a different thread a few months ago, I will try to find the link if anyone’s particularly interested (but it’s long and rather boring and again, not nearly as interesting as AHunter3’s link which also touches on this). It’s also interesting to consider changes made in gay rights in perspective with the women’s movement - just as gender roles began to be questioned and challenged by feminists in the 60s, society at large began to feel a little more comfortable with open discussion of homosexuality, due in part to a reduction in importance for both women and men to be seen to follow their culturally gender-assigned roles. As demonisation of men ‘in touch with their feminine side’ decreases, so does society’s distaste with the idea of one man willingly submitting to another sexually. Which strikes me as funny considering how intensely butch most gay men I personally know are and how gay pornography plays a lot with traditionally masculine stereotypes (cowboys, uniforms, bikers etc).
How much I would subscribe an origin of anti-gay prejudice to Christianity, I’m not sure; historically in this country, only a few hundred years ago where Christianity was of a much more primary importance, homosexual desire was accepted as a normal, if indulgent, sexual expression, much in the same vein as a married man taking a mistress. Sex should’ve been for procreative reasons only, but it was understood that a man would sometimes give into sex-for-pleasure urges, including same sex unions.
I liked Quentin Crisp’s answer. He referred to it as the “I hate Brussel Sprouts” reason; I’m paraphrasing, but you can see the interview in Celluloid Closet.
I’m glad I hate Brussel Sprouts, because if I didn’t hate them then I’d eat them, and eating them would make me sick, because I hate them.
I think it’s essentially empathy that causes anti-gay male prejudice. We can’t think of gay men without thinking of gay sex (ultimately), and when we think of gay sex it sounds revolting because we’re using our own standards, so if its something most people wouldn’t like to engage in it must be wrong. Lesbianism, on the other hand, is about having sex with women, so where’s the problem?
The ultimate path to accepting gay men is to do the same as with straight friends and not imagine their sex lives.
Odd definition you must have of natural. Because it most certainly happens in nature. What exactly do you mean?
Your opinion. Some people find chocolate ice cream disgusting.
The species is over 6 billion strong and expected to double in, what, 40-50 years? I don’t see how an almost negligible decrease in the population growth can be such a negative to make gays any less beneficial to humanity than any heterosexual would be.
Only if you ignore the credible organizations (Such as the AMA) composed of people likely much better able to diagnose mental disease, whom say otherwise.
Actually, I think rhapsody is trying to make us aware that some of the origins of anti-gay prejudice are really rather simple; they take root in basic ignorance of what it means to be gay, compound it with misinformation about the role of homosexuality in nature and in human culture, and add a tinge of xenophobia to create modern straight supremacism. Not a complex pathology at all, and easy to remedy, as I’m sure rhapsody meant to point out, by making sure accurate information about homosexuality is as widespread in our society as the misinformation that can lead to these fallacious conclusions has been.
People against homosexual sex pathologize homosexuals. People fine with it pathologize those who are against it.
In general, I don’t think pathologizing people’s feelings, sexuality, or opinions is a good idea, and it certainly isn’t the grounds for productive discussion.
I can undesrtand that for “disgusting”, and it’s a little less reasonable for “unnatural” (Even back then, there were still gay animals) or “non-beneficial” (I doubt anyone in ancient history really were thinking of someone not reproducing being a lack of contribution to society, especially since many gays have, historically, still often married members of the opposite sex and raised families, despite being gay). And “smacks of mental illness” is probably right out, since I doubt they had such great understanding of mental illness back that far in history (Might pass it off as being possessed or something like that, though).
Those who are tempted to blame Christianity, or Judeo-Christianity, for the origins of homophobia should read up on how adult male homosexuality is treated in Islamic countries or in China.
No. I meant to point out that homosexuality is an abberation. I do not condone mistreatment of gays or a lessening of their human rights any more than I would for a retarded person or a mental patient. I do not however in an fashion think that homosexuality SHOULD be considred normal or as a valid “choice”.
f you are homosexual then I pity you your shortcomings, and I don’t hold it against you, but don’t expect me or most other heterosexual males (and females) to ever consider it as a normal or acceptable alternative.
P.S. Rarely has there ever been evidence of homosexuality in animals and in almost every case “love” or “partnership” had very little to do wth the essentially “rape to establish dominance” actions of these animals. Hardly what you would call an example in nature of what you consider “gay”, unless of course your idea of “natural and homosexual” involve the forced participation of another.
It may not be something you have any control over or way to change and again I offer my pity for your infirmity, but in no way is it “natural”.
Well, Rhapsody I can see that you’re trying hard to make friends in the homo/bisexual contingency. I am afraid that I must inform you that your opinion is utter and complete fucking nonsense of the first water and so offensive that I find it rather hard to stay within the boundaries of civility when addressing it, but I am in a relatively patient mood this morning, so I shall indulge you with some links that might help fight the desperate ignorance that you spread.
For a more extensive exploration of that topic where you might find some of your friends having their similar opinions beaten to a pulp you might want to peruse this: Are there any examples of ‘gay’ animals besides human??
As a lesson in how pear shaped these discussions can go when one spouts offensive moronic crap, you might want to check out this recent train wreck: A parting gift for the homophobes. Wherein you will also understand why the kind of comments you make are extremely hurtful and offensive to some people.
Rhapsody: in a word, No. Please browse the pit.
My WAG: The problem with a sex drive is that a species will seek sex, not kids. In fact, as kids can be detrimental to one’s sex life, from the point of view of a being programmed to have as much sex as possible without suffering friction burns, it makes sense to find ways to have sex that don’t involve getting people pregnant. Enter gay sex. The problem is that guys whom find this concept icky are more motivated to go and actually find women to have sex with. Thus, feeling that homosexuality is icky is one of those things that evolved naturally.
Oh, yes. To spank Rhapsody: Nature has pleasureable sensations and painful sensations. Pleasurable means ‘keep doing this.’ There are sound evolutionary reasons why people are gay, and my theory as to why people take exception to this.
Here is where exclusive homosexuality as opposed to varying levels of bi-sexuality begins to wander into ABERRANT behavior.
Another instance of ABERRANT behavior
Call it normal if it makes you feel better, but it is still NOT a normal behavior. I can not speak to whether it is a mental illness/aberration, or a genetically induced condition but it is not normal, nor should it be presented as normal or as a “choice”.
Having non-breeding members of a pack around to care for children and suchlike. Many herd animals do it. And how, exactly, does one determine the morals of a chimpanzee?
Hmm.
Rhapsody: You have no point. You make the statement “homosexuality is wrong, because x, y, and z.” We blow the hell out of your points. Just to jump on the bandwagon:
unnatural (nope, see animals and my WAG), disgusting (Don’t do it, then), non-beneficial to a species(I’ve got at least a hypothesis. Can you back this up?), and smacks of mental illness (Erm, no. Not according to the experts.)
Not normal: What are you on? Homosexuality exists. Therefore, it is normal. Is left-handedness normal?
A lot of people make the mistake of thinking that lesbians have it easy. Not true. The “couple skate” phenomenon you describe above (which applies to a range of behaviors including hugging, holding hands, and dancing together) does not indicate that society is more accepting of lesbians than gay men, it indicates that society is less likely to assume that women in such a situation are homosexual than if they were men. In fact, society is generally happy to pretend that lesbians do not really exist at all.
Female homosexuality has been largely ignored for centuries, probably because female sexuality in general has long been considered to be of little importance. No one cared what women really wanted as long as they married and had children the way they were supposed to. But women, like men, who do not conform to cultural gender norms have always paid a high price for it.
Well, that’s what I get for assuming the best about people; sometimes I’m wrong. Here I thought rhapsody was providing us with a stellar example of textbook straight supremacism for the benefit of the discussion, and as it turns out, he was just providing us with a stellar example of textbook straight supremacism. Ah, well.
The “unnatural” argument amuses me every time it comes up. I can’t help but wonder what other areas of their lives these people judge by what animals do. Is it just their sex lives? No, honey, I can’t use condoms, that’s unnatural. Lube? No way, animals don’t use lube! Or does it extend to all aspects of their existence? Wearing clothes, cooking your food, living in houses, eating with silverware… all of these are unnatural activities.
Of course, animals don’t have art, or engineering, or medicine, or music, or language, or religion. For the most part, the human race tries to avoid using animals as an example of behavior. Why is this the one case where animals are somehow our superiors?
