From my newer site:
Posts Tagged With: gay
Some thoughts on the issue, in no particular order.
I’m not quite sure how it happened, the current opposition to gays and homosexuality that many men feel. Why do they hate gays so much? What caused this all? When? There are a few theories I have about why men have hated gays, supported gays, hated lesbians, and why they sometimes hate one more than another:
1. They seemed to hate lesbians more than gays a few hundred years ago, during the early witch hunt eras, like when the prospect of a woman resisting marriage to a man was very dangerous to them, and there was no sexual liberation that allowed them to fuck and chuck any woman.
2. They seemed to somewhat ignore or try to block out the knowledge of gays or lesbians during the Victorian Era, since sex in general was immoral, and so was sexual deviance. Gays were hated when discussed, but lesbians were invisible since women didn’t have sexual desires, they said. Perhaps this was…better?…for the lesbians? I don’t know.
3. Today being gay is severely punished, while being lesbian is called evil but is a little more ignored, or just considered butch, or lesbians get eyerolls or such. This isn’t because these men hate women less, it’s because they are more focused on the horrifying prospect that men are being dominated by other men, and that they are being turned into women. So, it is actually because they hate women so much they hate gays. They still hate Lesbians, it’s just that the topic doesn’t always come up as much.
I’ve noticed that a lot of the people opposed to homosexuality are women, especially religious women. I wondered why this was, since women are oppressed as well as gays and since the oppression was along similar lines- sex and gender. Then I started to feel like it might have something to do with this whole nervousness about sex and the body, especially the male body (since anti-homosexuality campaigns usually refer to male homosexuals). Maybe women were offended by male bodies and male sexuality, so male homosexuality made them afraid. Therefore they became conservative on the matter.
Then I figured that some instances of homosexuality on the part of men might be fueled by female hatred. Homosexuals in the Victorian Era, like Oscar Wilde, often disliked women, eve though the popular stereotype is of homosexuals being effeminate. A key reason may have been because they attracted to their own sex precisely because they disliked the other, much like the rugged cowboy, sick and tired of silly women, bonded in a sexual way with his own rugged brothers.
For example, the 2005 film Brokeback Mountain documents the fictional life of two cowboys who struggle with their homosexual attraction to each other, and the men seem to somewhat see the wives and children as a bit of a burden, annoying and frustrating their desires. These two men long to get away from their wives and kids and go out in the mountains and have an all-male homosexual relationship.
When the masculinity supporting homosexuals use phrases like “you’re homophobic”, they really mean to mock people’s fear- their fear of sex and heterosexuals’ fear of differing sexualities. It’s just like what men do to women who are afraid to have sex- they like to mock the “effeminate” fear of sex.
For these types of homosexual men, being against homophobia is not about tolerance and justice; it’s about the unacceptability of having a fear of sex, the unacceptability of having a fear of maleness and the male body, or fear of frightening and unknown sexual behavior. It’s also about, not tolerance for justice’s sake, but about tolerance in the sense that they want to be able to perform any kinds of sexual activities they want and with any kind of partner.
Objectively, there’s nothing wrong with homosexuality, either male or female. But to a woman who is frightened enough already about the whole topic of sex, frightened because of the behavior of men…do you think she’s going to react with logic and acceptance and tolerance, and without any fear when you introduce a whole foreign concept of sexuality and behavior to her, especially a totally male-centric one as male homosexuality?
Many women are opposed to both homosexuality and to lesbianism in theory, but are able to harbor and accept attractions to other women. This may be because they see homosexuality and other forms of sexuality which include one or more male partners to be threatening. It may also be because since the word “homosexuality” implies an attraction based upon physical body parts- i.e., it is an attraction towards a person’s physical, sexual body parts- and women see it as unemotional and are put off by the purely physical aspect of it. They are put off by the idea that one’s sexual attractions should be determined by the body parts of the partner. That’s what the average man is attracted by, they think. Someone’s body parts.
Also, because they live in a male-run society, women define “sex” solely as a physical thing…but, being women (who have to bear the painful role in sexual activity) they think they don’t like sex. Since any woman-woman relationships are going to include more love, and have less sex (or at least tie sex in with romantic love), they fail to recognize the relationship as a sexual one, and hence, a homosexual one, and therefore do not consider themselves lesbians. After all, they figure, they can’t be homosexual if they aren’t having sex.
To sum it up, many women consider the subject of homosexuality frightening because it seems sexually exotic (and therefore dangerous), and because they believe that male homosexuality is too full of masculinity (two men) to be non-threatening.
I’m wondering if this whole idea that most gays are effeminate is not an attempt to trick women into supporting the typical homosexual- the uber male who loves other males because they are male. “It’s okay, we’re all into shopping and clothes and scented candles and puppies and purple!” But are most homosexual not like that? Do the masculine homosexuals push around the feminine ones? It seems so.
Here’s what a lot of anti-gay women, or women who think they’re anti-gay, are thinking about the gay rights movement:
you guys have been allowed to fuck each other for god knows how long, in every society, even if it’s just in dark corners or secret clubs. We have been begging to have the kind of sex we want without getting murdered as witches or mutilated by doctors to cure our lesbianism. Not to mention the other abuses we suffer from being forced to accept your heterosexuality into our lives. And now you have the nerve to come out and complain that you aren’t exactly being treated like how human beings are supposed to be treated, that you aren’t getting your assed pleasured as many times as you want, that your behavior is subject to a few penalties which you have to power to at least protest properly, while we don’t?
The gay issue is only an issue because it mainly involves men (lesbians are invisible to them) and because it involves regulations against sexual behavior. If only lesbians existed in the universe, you can bet gay rights would never have become an issue at all.
The gay marriage and gay sex question, for men, is about getting to do whatever they want; for women, it’s about being fair to others. So you can see who has the better handle on what social justice means.
I was reading an article on the Radical Hub site and they were talking about male homosexuality and how taboo it is, and one commenter was like, “Where is male homosexuality taboo? Men’s institutions are cemented by it, the priesthood, the public school, the army and navy, anywhere men gather in groups without women being present. The taboo is on admitting it to women, and that, depending on the degree of patriarchy present in any given society, can be punishable by death. Because it is breaking the code of the boys club, which corrals women’s bodies by controlling their minds. Women must religiously follow heterosexual edicts, men are exempt.”
Ask any good history student, and they’ll tell you that men have been free to fuck each other all throughout history, with a few bans occurring on and off, often from women or from “effeminate” areas in the Church and from other moral-peddlers in society.
In Ancient Greece they were allowed- no, encouraged– to do it.
Ancient Rome, I believe, frowned on it a bit more but didn’t do much about it.
Alexander the Great was gay.
The Spartans were often gay.
Roman emperors had perverse sex with little boys. (Google “Tiberius and his minnows”)
Sodom and Gomorrah in the ancient Middle East.
Jewish mohels who suck baby boys’ newly circumcised penises.
The Turkish bath sort of places and nude swim areas the classical era men attended to escape women.
The earliest Popes, who compared boys’ naked bottoms to the texture of a peach, and later Popes who instituted orgies in their halls.
Asian sexual practices in India and China and Japan with two young males or one adult male and one younger one.
Various European kings and princes and politicians, sometimes (or often) soldiers.
Masons and other “secret societies”- yeah, we know your secret!- during the American Revolution and the European Enlightenment and other eras.
Gay princes and composers and oddball writers in the 19th Century, like Oscar Wilde.
Cowboys in the old American West, and of course, Brokeback Mountain.
Actors, singers, and other artists who dabble in gay orgies or fuckfests both on and off the screen/stage/paper.
Modern monarchs like Prince Charles, who are caught engaging in homosexual activity at various times, a counterpart to their 19th Century and older European counterparts.
Locker rooms, restrooms, bathroom troughs, and steam rooms, even public street urinals in modern Europe in which men often show off to each other.
Muslim training schools and madrassas where men learn how to praise Allah and bone little boys.
What these men oppose when they’re opposing restrictions against homosexuality is not the unfairness of it all, or the pain and rejection that many homosexual men (mostly the effeminate variety) suffer at the hands of patriarchal men. They oppose, instead, not being able to do whatever they want to do, especially sexually. They oppose not being allowed to have sex with other men, and hypocritically, they cry out against the “tyranny” of the Church and Victorian Era and other establishments- which they instituted themselves!- and blame the rare good aspects of the Church and religion and morality and all that, for acting “feminine” and not allowing them to have sex or revel in their masculinity. (The good aspects being “don’t hurt the innocent”, “everything in moderation”, “don’t be sexually irresponsible”, “look out for the little guy”, etc).
The fact that they aren’t able to open a simple history book and look at how unrestricted male homosexual sex has been in the past attests to their refusal to be objective and logical, and not to mention their uneducated demeanor whenever they approach any and all issues. It also proves the casualness with which they blame people who are totally innocent in regards to restricting their disgusting behavior (nagging women, disgusted churchgoers, whiny priests, etc).
You think women cared if they went off and fucked other men? They were probably happy to have them out of their hands, like Marie Barone is happy to see Frank go to the lodge in Everybody Loves Raymond. Thank God for the mother fucking lodge!
And lots of the authorities that opposed homosexuality, even if they had stereotypically feminine reasons for doing so, like “morality”, or “safety”, they were established by males, and it was males who banned the behavior.
This aspect of history, the aspect of men screaming about how they aren’t allowed to be homosexual, it reads much more like men trying to regulate other men’s behavior, or even their own behavior……and then getting angry at women who chime in on the wrong side. If you support homosexual men, you’re a witch. If you oppose it, you’re a bitch. Or an old crazy broad. If you think about it, the issue of males being allowed to be homosexual is almost exclusively an issue that concerns them. Men regulating other men and punishing them if they step out of line.
The only time women are involved is when they are used as cannon fodder for the anti-homosexual side to fight the opposition, or vice versa. And of course, for when one side wants to attack the others’ cannon fodder (women), because heaven knows they would rather attack a woman whom their opponent has brainwashed to oppose them than attack another man, even one with violently different opinions. So I guess on a certain level, men love each other so much that most of them are homosexuals. Some are just repressed and that’s what makes the differences of political opinion.
If you’re an effeminate man, and you love another man and sexually attract to him for proper reasons, then you’re a pussy. If you’re a woman, then you’re a cunt. You can’t win. It sucks. Welcome to history class.
(I am ¾ done with a bachelors in history so I can kinda say that).