Whence homophobia?

I have the impression that although homosexuality has almost always been frowned upon in modern times, it is only recently that it has been shunned like leprosy, with people (men) fearful of engaging in anything that could remotely be considered “gay.”

I’m not talking about the simply condemnation of homosexuality. That’s always been there. But the paranoia seems to be a recent development.

Am I right in this? And if so, any theories to explain how it arose?

A few reasons I have for thinking this:

Remember the skinny-dipping scene in A Room With A View? That’s right out of the book, too. Three men splashing around, having fun naked in the woods. The modern viewer would interprete something homosexual about it, but that’s just prejudice. There is nothing sexual in the scene. It’s just three guys swimming who happen to be nude. The significance here is that it indicates a lack of fear of the nudity of the same sex.

My grandfather matter-of-factly told me that he always swam in the nude with other boys. This would have been circa 1920. No way that would happen today. (Unless, of course, the boys were actually gay.)

In the book King’s Row by Henry Bellaman, a homosexual character reservedly tries to explain his frustrations and desires to Drake McHugh (the character portrayed by Ron Reagan in the film). Drake says of his homosexual tendencies, “That’s just kid stuff,” indicating that homoerotic experiments in children is common and no big deal. But he is not shocked or intimidated by the homosexuality in his friend, just perplexed and sympathetic.

There is a lot of male nudity in the action adventures of Edgar Rice Burroughs. He seems to have been completely unconcerned about naked men interacting with no women present to affirm their heterosexuality.

Not sure if the opening post is clear. What I mean is that I think in the past two male friends could walk down the street with an arm over the other’s shoulder and no one thought anything of it. Isn’t this true? And how did it change?

WAG: maybe it changed when the AIDS “crisis” emerged, and gays were seen as carriers of the horrible disease? Dunno really. Society’s mores change so often it’s hard to say why sometimes.

Sorry, but I still don’t think you are being clear.

If you are talking about male-bonding type of non-sexual activity, I think that hasn’t changed all that much. Kids still skinny dip in the summer and my guess is, there are still the “experiments” going on at summer camp.

But if you are talking about homophobia in its meaner, Matthew Shepard form - that seems to have come to be more in this century. I think too there is a combination of forces working - gay lib brought a new group of people into the forefront…and a lot of closeted men were none to happy to see this. They perceive any open reference of male to male sexual friendship as threatening to their secret desires and fears. (I firmly believe a truly 100% hetero man could give a rat’s ass if another guy is gay “More women for me, yippee!”) But the biggest homophobic sees something others can’t see…namely himelf.

I am not sure if this is the direction you want your question to lead, but there is my three dollar bill’s worth.

Are you sure that it is a recent development? We live in a much more liberal and enlightened world than a century ago. Maybe the reason it seems like a more homophobic society now is because the issue is out and often the subject of debate. I personally think that homosexuality a century ago was almost unspeakable, and that if someone were discovered as homosexual, they would be widely and cruelly discriminated against. Also, the media back then was not ever-present as it is today, ready to do a story on a hot-button issue. Back then, it probably wasn’t newsworthy because the very mention of homosexuality was inappropriate. Therefore, discrimination against homosexuals was not well documented.

However, I’ve heard that homosexuality was not at all considered perverse in ancient Greece, and that it was perfectly acceptable for members of the same sex to have sex with each other. I saw it on the History Channel during a special on the origins of the Olympic Games.

If you recall the scene in Planes, Trains, and Automobiles where Martin and Candy share a bed, making fun of the homophobia which is taken for granted as normal. That’s the kind of thing I’m talking about. Compare to Ishmael sharing a bed with Queequeg in Moby Dick. It seems at that time it was not unusual for a traveler to be asked to share a bed with a total stranger (of the same sex of course).

They do? In America? I’d surprised.

Right. This is not what I am referring to. But the gay lib thing is definitely part of both. When they were safely in the closet no one was intimidated and there was less fear.

This is a question for the pychologists to answer, but until I see the figures I am suspicious of this view. It is just the sort of ironic twist that people would like to believe. I’ll regard it as wishful thinking until I see something concrete.

And at bottom it is homo-hating itself. It is the view that, “Normal hetero men don’t do such things. It’s twisted homosexuals themselves that are perpetrating these acts of violence.”

Frankly, I think there really is a latent homosexual subtext to the swimming sequence in A Room with a View, though it may be that the characters in the story were too innocent (or too repressed) to be conscious of it. Consider that the first thing the Helena Bonham Carter character’s younger brother says upon meeting her new boyfriend for the first time is “would you like to take a bathe”–i.e. “can we get naked together”? The minister who goes skinny dipping with them observes that this is “remarkable”, or words to that effect, and tries to pass it off as a joke. Consider that author E. M. Forster was fairly open about being gay.

For all of that, there are still plenty of contexts in which men swim together nude, and even see it as a particularly “he-man” activity. When pressure first arose in the 1970s for the elitists Missouri Athletic Club in St. Louis to admit women, members argued that they “couldn’t” because they swam nude in the club pool.

As for the suggestion in King’s Row that homosexuality is related to immaturity, that is a very widespread view of homosexuality which, while spoken of less often in public now, is still fairly well established in our culture. In the late 1960s one of the major American television networks broke the prevailing silence on homosexuality in a then-daring documentary special on the subject. Gay men were shown with their backs to the camera as excerpts from interviews with them were played. One man spoke in agonized tones about how he was struggling to be “cured” and that he understood that his “problem” was that he was “immature”.

In writing this passage in King’s Row, I believe Henry Bellamann was also expressing the common anxiety that homosexuals prey on young people who are not firm about their sexual identity. A common theme among the Religious Right is that homosexuals cannot expand their numbers by reproducing, and so have to “recruit”. The point that homosexuals and bisexuals quite often have children aside, this “recruitment” myth is strongly embedded in our culture. There was a celebrated satire of this in the famous “puppy episode” of the Ellen DeGeneres Show; during the closing credits Laura Dern is awarded a microwave by a member of the “homosexual conspiracy” for having recruited DeGeneres.

There are, incidentally, people who literally believe in the existence of a vast homosexual conspiracy. In the 1960s gay men in the Chicago area developed a kind of password by which to identify one another. Upon meeting a man they thought might also be gay, but being afraid to come out and ask him, some gay men would say “I think we’ve met before; I’m a friend of Dorothy’s”. The reference was to Dorothy Gail, the character played by Judy Garland in The Wizard of Oz, Garland being traditionally associated with female impersonators. U.S. Naval Intelligence got wind of this, and actually made an effort to track down this Dorothy who was the head of the vast gay conspiracy.

To cite an earlier example of homophobia taking the form of a paranoid belief in conspiracy, James Thurber wrote in his book The Years with Ross that The New Yorker had at one time employed a man of rather effiminate demeanor. Although it was apparent to Thurber and a good many other members of the staff that he was gay, it had to be explained to Ross after the man was fired for stealing. Ross later told Thurber that the man had stolen from the magazine because homosexuals always try to hurt “normal” people.

One reason for equating homosexuality with immaturity may be that it provides a rationalization for men who became aware of homosexual inclinations when they entered puberty but have since suppressed them, or else become very good at denying they have them; they can tell themselves that these feelings are a normal part of growing up, and proof of how normal they were, and have become.

While this is a little off-subject, it is a truism that many of the most vocal and adamant homophobes are themselves homosexual. Some homophobes doubtlessly use it as a way of covering up. Some may use it as a way of convincing themselves they are not gay. Some appear to use it as way of venting anger and self-loathing their orientation causes them.

Billy Sol Hargis, a prominent broadcast evangelist of the 1960s, went to jail for various sexual offenses, some involving other men. G. Harrell Carswell, a failed nominee for the Supreme Court during the Nixon Administration, made a career of denouncing homosexuals, right up to the time he went to jail for molesting boys.

It is interesting in this context that many homophobes equate being homosexual with being effete or weak; hence the astonishment some people expressed when it came out that Rock Hudson was gay.

There is an oddly widespread belief in American culture that a man is not “really” a homosexual so long as he uses his penis while having sex. Numerous men who have been prosecuted for beating or even killing gays have openly admitted under questioning that they had sex with their victims, but have not seen a contradiction between this and their insistence that they are themselves not homosexual.

Roy Cohn, the attorney who assisted Joseph McCarthy in his antiCommunist crusade, was a particularly outspoken homophobe for decades. After he died of AIDS it was widely reported that he had paid over one thousand men for sex during his lifetime. Friends of his argued that he honestly did not believe himself to be gay, as he had always been in a “dominant” (if not sadistic) role in his relationships; he may have believed that having sex with a man was okay provided that you paid for it.

It is interesting that the three figures just cited were also adamant antiCommunists. Communism was sometimes equated with homosexuality in films of the 1950s such as My Son John, in
which the all-American Dean Jagger makes a number of gay innuendoes about his son Robert Walker, who is a closeted Communist.

In the case of women, extreme homophobia sometimes seems to be a way of expressing antipathy and discomfort towards men generally. It was noted that during her anti-homosexual crusade Anita Bryant (who was largely ignored when she changed her opinion and apologized for the things she had said about gays) spoke of homosexuality as though it occurred exlusively among men.

There was apparently a time when a great many women actually thought this; Queen Victoria objected to Parliament banning homosexual activity by women as “everybody knew” there wasn’t really such a thing as a Lesbian. Bryant, on the other hand, certainly had the opportunity to know better. Growing up, Bryant and the rest of her family had been dominated by her grandfather, an angry bully who had threatened the life of doctors at the hospital where she was delivered when her mother developed complications during labor. She frankly admitted that she was dominated and manipulated from the start by her first husband, and she later fell into acting as a stooge for an anti-gay rights organization, whose (male) directors told her she did not have their permission to get a divorce. After a lifetime of letting the important men in her life dictate to her, it is understandable that she could have developed an anti-male bias to which she would not admit.

It’s been my observation that some women with a vitriolic distaste for gay men seem to see them as a kind of challenge or competition; they are attractive women who flirt relentlessly, and appear to take the attention they elicit from men generally as an important validation of their own self-worth. The idea that there are men who can get along quite well without women is a challenge to their sense of purpose, place, and value.

To sum up, homophobia did not suddenly come into vogue in our society. It has been around for a long time, and it has been a deep-rooted theme in our culture, tied to a number of other anxieties, and helping shape attitudes about the roles of the sexes generally.

Certainly it predates the AIDS crisis; in fact, it was the rampant homophobia which already existed which helped shape–and confuse–the first public discussions about AIDS. In the mid 1980s, when President Reagan had not yet uttered the word “AIDS” in public, Rev. Jerry Falwell announced that it was his informed opinion (well, actually, he stated it as a fact), that the disease had been created by God as a punishment for homosexuals.

Thank you for that interesting post, slipster. But what do you think about my original question? Were (hetero) men in the 19th and early 20th century less wary about homosexuality, more comfortable with physical contact with other men and not concerned about being branded a homosexual? Or is that just a misconception?

As I understand it, in Ancient Greece and less often in other ancient culture (mostly pre-Christian) the act of homosexual sex was considered normal for the man using his penis on the other man. The other man was shamed by the act of being violated, but this was usually not something opened up to the public. Also, it was not at all uncommon for older men to have relationships with young boys, however, they had to “court” them and buy them gifts, help support their family, and educate them. In these older man/younger boy relationships penatrative sex was not allowed.

oldman-withers is on target regarding what is known about ancient Greek practices. In Sparta it was common practice for young army recruits to be assigned to an older man who acted as their mentor–and as their lover.

Anal intercourse between men was not considered degrading and taboo. Go figure: anal intercourse with women appears to have been tolerated.

As for the issue of whether theexpression of homophobia is more common in modern times, I think there are two key issues to consider:

1.) More homosexuals are open about their orientation today, and so there are more targets at which people can express their intolerance.

2.) Because public expression of homophobia is more actively engaged in, more people–whether straight or gay–feel more pressure to avoid saying or doing anything which might seem even remotely gay.

In other words, I suspect homophobia has always been fairly rampant, but I think it got discussed publicly less often in the past because homosexuality was discussed less openly in the past.

Among purely male societies, I expect that there has always been a fair amount of self-consciousness and self-censorship about homosexuality and the appearance of homosexuality. When I was in military school (the 70s), the insult of choice when one was angry at a classmate was to suggest that he was gay. Such insults were far more prevalent than suggesting they were stupid, ugly, a physical weakling, etc. This is dealt with at length in the play Tea and Sympathy, in which a heterosexual boy who is unpopular with his classmates at an all-male boarding school is persecuted for being gay. It eventually turns out that the biggest he-man among the faculty is a closeted homosexual.

As I write this, it occurs to me that one reason accusing people of being gay in such environments is so popular may be that one can accuse someone of being a “faggot” even if they are smart, good-looking and physically fit. I recall an old Dave Berg cartoon from Mad Magazine in which a kid, after calling various people “faggots”, says that “a faggot is anyone who can do something I can’t”.

As I alluded to before, in some contexts behavior which may seem gay-oriented can actually be given the opposite value; men may go skinny-dipping because that is what is done by “real men” who “know” they and their friends aren’t gay. (Incidentally, when an abolition of the ban on homosexuals in the American military was debated during the first Clinton administration, I, for one, found it kind of funny to hear rough-and-tough servicemen whimper about how they didn’t want to take showers with homosexuals). In the same way, in Tea and Sympathy the students, who are by and large swaggering he-men,. have a peculiar ritual in which the upperclassmen tear the pajamas off of the new boys. Because they think he is gay, the hero faces potential disgrace if no one wants to strip him.

oldman-withers is on target regarding what is known about ancient Greek practices. In Sparta it was common practice for young army recruits to be assigned to an older man who acted as their mentor–and as their lover.

Anal intercourse between men was not considered degrading and taboo. Go figure: anal intercourse with women appears to have been tolerated.

As for the issue of whether theexpression of homophobia is more common in modern times, I think there are two key issues to consider:

1.) More homosexuals are open about their orientation today, and so there are more targets at which people can express their intolerance.

2.) Because public expression of homophobia is more actively engaged in, more people–whether straight or gay–feel more pressure to avoid saying or doing anything which might seem even remotely gay.

In other words, I suspect homophobia has always been fairly rampant, but I think it got discussed publicly less often in the past because homosexuality was discussed less openly in the past.

Among purely male societies, I expect that there has always been a fair amount of self-consciousness and self-censorship about homosexuality and the appearance of homosexuality. When I was in military school (the 70s), the insult of choice when one was angry at a classmate was to suggest that he was gay. Such insults were far more prevalent than suggesting they were stupid, ugly, a physical weakling, etc. This is dealt with at length in the play Tea and Sympathy, in which a heterosexual boy who is unpopular with his classmates at an all-male boarding school is persecuted for being gay. It eventually turns out that the biggest he-man among the faculty is a closeted homosexual.

As I write this, it occurs to me that one reason accusing people of being gay in such environments is so popular may be that one can accuse someone of being a “faggot” even if they are smart, good-looking and physically fit. I recall an old Dave Berg cartoon from Mad Magazine in which a kid, after calling various people “faggots”, says that “a faggot is anyone who can do something I can’t”.

It should not be assumed that because, say, men felt comfortable about going skinny-dipping together or engaging in other behavior we consider “suspect” that they were necessarily less paranoid about being seen as homosexuals. It may simply be the case that a particular time and in a particular place, men assigned a different meaning or value to an activity than we do today. For instance, it is said that in some mining camps in the old west, men would hold all-male dances; half the men would where markers showing that they had been assigned to follow rather than to lead.

In fact, as alluded to before, in some contexts behavior which may seem gay-oriented can actually be given the opposite value; men may go skinny-dipping because that is what is done by “real men” who “know” they and their friends aren’t gay. (Incidentally, when an abolition of the ban on homosexuals in the American military was debated during the first Clinton administration, I, for one, found it kind of funny to hear rough-and-tough servicemen whimper about how they didn’t want to take showers with homosexuals). In the same way, in Tea and Sympathy the students, who are by and large swaggering he-men, have a peculiar ritual in which the upperclassmen tear the pajamas off of the new boys. Because they think he is gay, the hero faces potential disgrace if no one wants to strip him.

I heard once that members of the Bohemian Grove Club frolic nude in the woods, but I don’t know if it’s true (not being a member).

QED, speaking from age and experience, there were homophobic attitudes very prevalent well before GRID ever was noticed by medical science, let alone before it was reclassified as AIDS and recognized as what it is, and the general public became aware of it.

Not all ancient societies were tolerant, either.

Many sources claim that the Norse regarded implications of homosexuality as very insulting - calling somebody a “faggot” in a Norse mead hall would net you about the same results as in a redneck bar in Texas - about the only difference would be the available weapons.

I think slipster is close, but I would interpret things slightly differently. It is not because public expression of homophobia is more likely – if it was known that a man was gay in the olden days, the reaction may or may not have been violent, but it probably wouldn’t have been positive. My thought is that the public expression of homosexuality itself is more acceptable; thus what once would have been regarded as an act of affection between school chums would now be regarded as an act of affection between buggering perverts (in the homophobe’s mind, mind you).

That is, when homosexuality was unspeakable, it was simply out of the question that two men might be gay in the perception of the bystander who caught a peek of them skinny-dipping. Now that an actual gay person could plausibly do such a thing openly with some romantic intent, the skinny-dipper has a legitimate fear that the act will be perceived as “gay.” Being perceived as gay was always bad (in the context of American society at least) – it just didn’t cross people’s minds that a gay person would have the temerity to try it in public.

This is, of course, all conjecture, not being a queer studies scholar or having even been alive in the olden days.

There’s an anecdote about Ludwig van Beethoven and Johann Wolfgang von Goethe some time after the French Revolution, circa 1800. They were walking down a narrow sidewalk arm in arm, and an aristocrat approached going the other direction. Goethe made to let go their arm linkage, to make way for the aristocrat to pass between them. But Beethoven gripped Goethe’s arm the more tightly and said “Let him go around us!”

The point of this anecdote is not that they were gay (they weren’t), but that Beethoven was a radical of the spirit of democracy and wanted to break the custom of showing deference to the nobility.

It wasn’t unusual at all. It was actuall sort of expected.

Beds were expensive pieces of furniture. Due to their size and weight, pioneers didn’t usually bring beds with them when they travelled West. (They would build them once they got there.) Most of the time, siblings would share a bed, for several reasons:

  1. Relative scarcity of linens and the beds themselves.

  2. Space limitations. Houses were much smaller at the time.

  3. Warmth. Bedrooms were often unheated in the 1800s, and having more people in the bed made it warmer.

  4. Lack of expectation of privacy. “Privacy” is a very new concept. Whole families often shared one bedroom.

Travellers, as you know did share beds. Often, if you went to an inn, you’d find someone already in the bed you had rented. Single people usually shared beds as well. Only the very rich could expect to have a bed to themselves.

It also wasn’t all that unusual to have different-sex people sharing a bed, as long as they were “chaperoned” in some way. Mary Todd Lincoln used to have one of her husband’s law partners share the bed with her and her son while Lincoln was away on trips because she was afraid of burglars. I’m sure you’ve also heard of the charming custom of “bundling bags.” Itenerant preachers sometimes slept in the beds of those congregants that they were visiting out on the frontier. (In the winter time, it would be foolish to sleep on the floor, so why not crawl in bed with the family and stay warm?)

Beds were considered almost “public” pieces of furniture, thought of the same way we would think of a couch today. They were often in plain view of anyone who came into your home. It wasn’t until the Victorian era when beds were “hidden” and thus sexualized.

Fascinating posts so far, everyone.

In first half of the last century, men were more homosocial (I am pretty sure I am using this word correctly) than they are today. They used to walk arm in arm, dance together, etc. I think this is due to the fact that women were not as accessible for pre-marital companionship as they are today (think chaperones!). As a result, men HAD to associate with other men if they wanted to do anything fun (sports, games, higher learning, etc.), but it was probably less of a hassle than dealing with curfews and chaperones anyway.

In other cultures where the sexes are segregated in public life, there is usually there is a higher propensity for men to show affection for one another. Maybe it’s because the women don’t have the social standing (read: power) to deem them homosexual. (Although I realize that the more powerful judgment of homosexuality would come from other men, not women.)

Within the last fifty years or so, this “distance” between men and women, and the formalities that accompany it, has completely disappeared–except in groups like the Amish and the Hasidim, where segregation of the sexes is a normal part of life. Our culture has become much more sexualized, and any touching that happens between men is often carefully scrutinized by the patriarchy for evidence of homosexuality.

In any case, I think the increased “availability” of women for pre-marital pursuits, combined with our oversexed culture, discourages male-male bonding in all but the most brutish (and brutal) forms, such as in armed combat or in heavy contact sports such as football–which, interestingly enough, when played in front of crowds, is almost always accompanied by a group of beautiful, shapely women dancing around on the sidelines, as if to ward off the mere SUGGESTION of homosexuality in the men who are touching one another on the field.

Just my 0.02.

A most fascinating thread! Brilliant posts! Absolutely agree with all of you. (Shows my intelligence.)
Reading Victorian & Edwardian literature, memoirs, etc. certainly indicates that men did walk arm-in-arm, young women held hands, people wrote letters to members of their sex that we would probably interpret as romantic. Just a difference in styles.
Even the way people talked about opposite-sex relationships has changed. Jane Austen’s female characters talk about the men who “made love” to them at parties & dances – meaning they flirted, asked them to dance, etc.

Funny story: my daughter & I attended a concert by an act popular with gays. We are a mother & daughter who are affectionate with each other. When the concert began, we were separated in the crowd. Several gay guys we’d talked with in line reunited us. Told me, “We didn’t want you to spend the concert without your lover!” My daughter howled with laughter, said "She’s not my lover, she’s my mother!

I was flattered that they thought I could get a woman as young & pretty as my daughter!

I guess my point is that everything is open to interpretation. And yes, TGWATY, homophobia is more violent today, just like everything else.

In the museum in which I work we have a large collection of letters written during the Victorian period. It was not at all uncommon for girls to use phrases like, “I can’t wait to feel your arms around me again,” and “I love you, darling!” to their close friends. Some letters even have the girls stating their longing for their friend’s kisses, and talk of the “thrill” of holding their friends’ hands. Nothing about this was deemed improper in any way.