Well, except for those where it is compulsory, and the much larger number, such as Classical Greece and large swathes of modern North America and Western Europe, where it is totally cool.
Thanks for the farm.
As the current moral panic over pedophilia has only been going on for about 30 years, during which time acceptance of male homosexuallity in Western culture has become much more widespread than it used to be, I don’t think so.
You’ve been reading my slash fic, haven’t you?
No, you’re wrong.
Historically, male homosexual acts have been more tolerated than female ones. As noted, in places as disparate as Ancient Greece, 19th century British boarding schools, and present-day Afghanistan, male homosexual activity was a more-or-less accepted cultural practice. Exclusive Homosexual oreintation was condemned, but the acts were seen as tolerable or even admirable. Female-on-female sexuality was usually barely acknowledged as existing, or even being possible, but when it was found it was regarded as much more intolerable.
It’s popular now, as we are in the era of widespread hard-core porn, and contemporary men find two babes doing to be hot. But that’s very, very unusual in history.
Wait, hold on. Is this even true? I would have thought you’d usually have more women than men, with men dying in war and whatnot. Do you have a cite that surplus men is historically normal?
Historically, female sexual desire has been seen as nonexistent or, at the least, entirely besides the point. Nobody really cared who a given woman preferred to sleep with, because it wasn’t ever going to really be her choice. What is typically important to society is that people have babies, and most women historically have been put in a position where they’ll have babies whether they want them or not.
A man who decides not to have a family, however, is going to have a greater chance of making that a reality. Men traditionally have not been as dependent, and have greater choice in their family life. This represents a real social threat to people. This also explains why male homosexual activity is often as long as it happens on the side- as long as screwing men doesn’t get in the way of you being a father, you are gold.
Then it would seem far less threatening, to a given heterosexual man, for the per-woman competition to be decreased by male homosexuality, than increased by female.
Male homosexuality is more dangerous because men are more dangerous than women. By the same token, lesbianism is safer than het sex.
That’s got a lot to do with “the invisibility of lesbians”, or as Buck put it:
If two women were going to have a relationship and were just moderately discrete about it, anyhting “off” would be more likely to be noticed by other women than by the men. Unless one of the women who noticed had both a reason to want to raise a fuss and the means to do it (such as a convenient Inquisition to whom report the “witches getting naked together for sluttiness!”), the women would go unnoticed to the forces of Law and Order; even when they got noticed, the crime would be highly likely to get labeled something else, such as witchcraft.
The reason that some people are against homosexuality is caused in many cases by a feeling of disgust. People often have difficulty telling revulsion in general apart from the instinctive revulsion they feel at seeing something immoral.
Male homosexual sex, or even, say, men kissing, pings many men’s disgust sensor, while most men are either neutral or actively turned on by the notion of two women getting it on.
Prior to modern times it was only really the male reaction that mattered (though I would guess that women would’ve found the former more disgusting too). And it is prior to modern times that the idea of persecuting male homosexuality in particular has got ingrained.
The obvious follow-on question is why all-male sex disgusts straight men.
My WAG would be that when you have a gender happy to engage in transactional sex, and one that isn’t, the obvious thing would be for the less discriminating gender to keep to themselves. A revulsion to close contact with other men may be an instinct that essentially says “No! Persist with the gender you have to convince!”
But wouldn’t that work the other way as well? If I, a gay man, am disgusted by something that straight people do, e.g. cunnilingus, wouldn’t that disgust cause me to label it as immoral, and cause me to become heterophobic? But it doesn’t. Disgust, in and of itself is not a sufficient explanation.
Superficially, the obvious evolutionary reasons are that a man has such a vast reproductive output compared to a woman that the loss of his fertility is a much bigger loss to the family line, and that female sexual interest has unfortunately been historically more or less irrelevant to the reproductive equation).
But neither of those things really rings true to me, for several reasons. First, no amount of cultural revulsion could compel an erection in a man born to love men. Not going to happen. Second, female sexual interest can’t have been entirely irrelevant for all of evolutionary history, or else it wouldn’t exist. Third, entire societies have been documented as being shot through with male homosexuality as a social norm at every socioeconomic level. Fourth, the basis for revulsion of any type (food, whatever) is demonstrably cultural and learned in most cases (the revulsion itself is biological, but the triggers are entirely learned, at least for things that aren’t outright threatening, like things other than snakes or spiders).
My own pet theory is that male homosexuality is similar to obesity… it is a marker of idleness and wealth, and in some social contexts those are status markers. Status markers are threats to those who don’t possess them, so they are to be undermined and devalued where possible. Those who possess them are to be socially demeaned so that their surplus resources can be more easily gotten. It’s a kind of tribal-ape version of social justice. The current cultural revulsion to male homosexuality is probably the irrelevant ripples of some huge cultural backlash centuries ago, and in a few more centuries they will dissipate to nothing again.
revulsion is the right word. I totally agree with lesbians, I stick to women when it comes to having sex 
But it is an asymmetric situation.
If you want to talk about a hypothetical situation where gay men are at least as common as straight men in society, and have centuries of influence on society, then sure some straight sexual acts might be seen as disgusting, and then in turn immoral.
Of course that’s if it’s true that gay men in the main find acts like cunnilingus disgusting as opposed to merely unappealing.
nm
nm
Cite? My google fu may be weak, but I can’t find any convictions for women here.
As for being pursuant, it does seem to chime with selfish gene theory. Stable communities could exist with very few males participating, but individuals want their own genes to survive.
On the other hand, this doesn’t seem coherent:
Status markers survive in individuals where they present a selection advantage given the environment. Secret loathing? Not a thing if the target is the head of a hierarchy. Widespread subjugation? Absolutely a problem. Dawkins discusses three hypotheses here.
Status markers aren’t genetic. The tendency to recognize & value status probably is biologically hardwired, but status markers are entirely culturally constructed (easily evident by the fact that they are constantly changing in less than a human lifespan.
The status of the head of a hierarchy can’t be undermined? You’re really sure that doens’t happen?
Many modern societies reinforce an alpha male culture. This automatically forces male homosexuality into the realm of deviance. Modern cultures that view it this way have almost definitely been heavily influenced by religion, which was used as a tool for increasing reproduction and uniformity of class status.
There have been cultures that support/encourage male homosexuality. As it’s been said, the Greeks were one of these cultures - until Christianity took over. However, “Greek” homosexuality was usually between an older male and a younger male, unlike its manifestation in some modern cultures, including the US.
Male homosexuality in modern cultures seems to be a product of compromise between the stigma of young male/old male relationships and the existence of innate drives for homosexual relationships. That will likely change with time as religious influences are increasingly ignored.
That’s the subject of three of my screenplays!
That’s illogical on several planes. First and foremost, dominant personalities are not incompatible with homosexuality. Even if this weren’t true, your theoretically alpha-male culture by definition has a healthy demand for beta males, since by definition not everyone can be the alpha male. Third, really, what’s the definition of “alpha-male culture”? Has there ever really been an alpha-female or a beta-female culture?
Finally, assuming you’re talking about like a male-dominated military or meritocracy, wouldn’t homosexuality be a great way to work your way up through the ranks (horrible pun unintended but unavoidable). Then once you top out (again, sorry), you invest more resources into a wife and family. Remember, few homosexuals spend their entire lives and every waking moment that way, there’s a mix of behavior for most people.