The Origin of Homophobia

[Katherine Brengle]

" The men have become "abominable" and "detestable" and "against nature"; a separate race. This is because law creates nature. Nature is not, in this sense, trees or weeds or wind. It is gender: what men are and what women are; what a man is in intercourse, what a woman is in intercourse.

The sodomy laws have an affirmative side, rich in meaning and persuasive power. Do not f*** men as if they are women; it is an abomination. The imperative is communicated, in the blank spaces as it were, to f*** women as if women are women: carnal chattel of men, proper objects for the list of domination. The abomination is to do to men what is normally done to women in the f***: the penetration; the possession; the contempt because she is less, lower in standing before the law or God; the right to use her, which is, inevitable, a right over her. Both Augustine and Mailer describe the list of domination in not dissimilar terms: an ecstasy, a frenzy, cruelty, all-encompassing, dominance in the f*** as a supreme and superb pleasure. Men are not supposed to have to endure being the victims of this lust; perhaps because there is an implicit recognition that the subordination itself, the carnal experience of it, would change them, their so-called nature--create in them the incompleteness, the low self-esteem, so commonplace in women under male dominance.

The sodomy laws are important, perhaps essential, in maintaining for men a superiority or civil and sexual status over women. They protect men as a class from the violation of penetration; men's bodies have unbreachable boundaries. A capital crime for thousands of years in the Judeo-Christian tradition, viewed with loathing as an obscene violation of male nature, sodomy suggests a nightmare vision of one kind of sexual equality: men used by men as women are in sex to satisfy the lust for dominance expressed in the f***. The power of the gender system with men on top depends on keeping men distinct from women precisely in this regard.

...

The creation of gender (so-called nature) by law was systematic, sophisticated, supremely intelligent; behavior regulated to produce social conditions of power and powerlessness experienced by the individuals inside the social system as the sexual natures inside them as individuals. "

Homophobia and misogyny, both so rampant in our society and the world at large are control mechanisms designed to create order; an order in which one sex is held above the other and deviants cannot be accepted.

To deviate from the laws we have created is to threaten the very fabric of society.

Therefore, in order to change the fabric of society for the better, we must be deviant. Rejection of social dogma and questioning our assumptions and expectations is only the first step toward destroying the nature we have created.

Sometimes, what we think is freeing and empowering is in fact the opposite. Playing up sex as the ultimate human potential cheapens what and who we are as human beings and reinforces the social caste system created by our forebears and perpetuated by ourselves.

(The excerpt above was written by one of the most brilliant and most hated human beings of our time. Yet it is spot-on in its analysis of why society hates homosexual men. Perhaps sometimes our beliefs about the validity of a person's viewpoint are too damaged by a lifetime of indoctrination to allow us to look for ourselves and be objective. I have left the author's name off for now to allow discussion not to float.)

[Buzz Clik]

1. Do you have a source for your opening passages?

[Katherine Brengle]

2. Did you read the post?

Yes, I do, and no, I am not posting it at the moment. I would like an objective discussion if possible.

[The Magistrate]

7. Doubtless Ms. Dworkin, Sir: The Style Is Quite Distinctive

A meditation on the meaning of several passages of Old Testament law, that misses a couple of salient points underlying them by treating them anachronisticly from a modern's perspective.

First, in some of the religions in the area, homosexual eunuch priesthoods were a prominent feature. One underlying theme of the old law is barring any practice that overlaps the sacred practices of other religions, so as to put a fence around anything that might be interpreted as worship of a different diety.

Second, the passages of the law in the Bible were actually compiled much later than they proclaim themselves to have been drawn up, and at the time they actually were drawn up, Hellenistic culture, which famously included male homosexuality as a routine upper-strata practice, was a prestigious competitor with the Hebrew culture. Again, the theme of 'don't do what those pagans do' is a prominent feature.

Third, the whole focus of the body of sexual regulations in the Old Testament is aimed at maximizing fertility, with the underlying ideal being that whenever a man ejaculates, a child ought to be the result. The period of uncleaness associated with menstruation, for instance, ends at about the time ovulation would commence, and by requiring the husband to refrain from sexual activity for a period of nearly two weeks, ensures he will be, shall we say, rather eager to be at it. Things like penetrating a male or an animal, or Onan's coitus interuptus, all are things that cannot result in conception, and so cannot be countenanced in a system of regulation aimed at securing maximum fertility within the people.

[Buzz Clik]

17. Quite possibly. Knowing that she has a following at DU would explain much.

[Katherine Brengle]

23. A "following?"

You mean, a handful of people who are actually familiar with her work and willing to read what she has to say and decide for themselves, rather than let the media tell us what to think?

What a bunch of losers we must be.

:)

[The Magistrate]

26. But Of Course, Ma'am

Not everyone familiar with her work finds it apt, or apt in more than part, as a description of the actual state of affairs she presents it as an analysis of.

[Buzz Clik]

28. You equate "following" to media-brainwashed "loser"?

That's quite an extrapolation.

Apparently the word "following" is inflammatory and no longer PC. Let me try again:

"Knowing that some people at DU are familiar with her work and embrace the concepts would explain some of the reactions (and wording) of comments I've received."

Oh, fuck this. I'm rephrasing it again:

"I'm really sick and tired of having paranoid assholes busting my balls for no fucking reason at all. Reading the passage in the OP, knowing now who wrote it, and suddenly realizing that Dworkin has a following here explains why things can get so nasty in hurry."

[Terran]

128. Oh yes, thank you very much

The rest of us ARE mindless media-enslaved drones. Thank god for the likes of you. x(

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

132. No.

People who are actually familiar with her work and somehow despite it actually accept it.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

142. Well, since you're familiar with her work, you could tell us if the quotes in post #109 are accurate

And if so, whether you agree with them or not. Here, I'll repeat them here for your convenience:

Men are distinguished from women by their commitment to do violence rather than to be victimized by it.

No woman needs intercourse; few women escape it.

Only when manhood is dead - and it will perish when ravaged femininity no longer sustains it - only then will we know what it is to be free.

Seduction is often difficult to distinguish from rape. In seduction, the rapist often bothers to buy a bottle of wine.

You think intercourse is a private act; it's not, it's a social act.

Childbearing is glorified in part because women die from it.

For men I suspect that this transformation begins in the place they most dread -- that is, in a limp penis. I think that men will have to give up their precious erections and begin to make love as women do together.

Intercourse is the pure, sterile, formal expression of men's contempt for women.

[NaturalHigh]

38. You beat me to it.

Miss Dworkin's hatred and bile have outlived her.

[Katherine Brengle]

42. Have you read her work?

I doubt it.

She was angry, about a lot of things that we should ALL be angry about, but true hatred isn't something I've seen from reading her.

If you haven't read her work, I would suggest that you are intellectually dishonest and should give that some serious attention before engaging in serious discussions.

[NaturalHigh]

45. See Post #44.

Yes, I've read some of her work. There is more than irrational anger in her writings and speeches (though there is certainly plenty of that); there is a pronounced hatred of men and anyone who doesn't hate men (at least heterosexual men).

Your opinion of my intellectual honest is of no concern to me.

[xchrom]

3. i always strive to be deviant.

on a more sober note -- one of thing that strikes me here is the issue of the notably masculine male as it relates to gay sex.

you can only say so much about the topic here -- because it would get locked --

[Warpy]

4. (sigh) Man as predator, woman as prey

It's the foundation of patriarchy. It's a crippling paradigm for all of us.

Now you all know why I live with a cat.

[NMMNG]

8. And cats aren't predators?

:silly:

[Katherine Brengle]

22. Cats :)

We just adopted a new kitten yesterday - sweetest thing in the world.

[Riktor]

84. It has nothing to do with predation...

It has everything to do with reproduction. From an evolutionary standpoint, the worst thing a male can do is waste resources on a child that is not his. Thus, males are "protective" of females, to the point of keeping them shut away from the rest of society, to ensure that none of her eggs come into contact with the seed of another man. Perhaps ironically, the "fittest" organisms are those that pass on their genetic information to as many offspring as possible, thus male promiscuity.

All of this implicit behavior, programmed into our genes. Obviously, this doesn't justify patriarchy; we are cerebral organisms, and have shown ourselves capable of overcoming even the most powerful of biological drives, the fear of death. But, to overcome our less desirable evolutionary traits, we must first understand them, and frankly, Andrea Dworkin was woefully ignorant in her descriptions of human sexuality. For some reason, she kept trying to describe sex as a social construct when it is clearly an innate biological mechanism.

For more information on this topic, I suggest reading Dr. Robert Wright's "The Moral Animal: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology". It describes the worst aspects of male-female relations in brutal detail and does not make excuses or them.

[pink-o]

94. BINGO!!!!!

DING DING DING DING DING! We have a winner.

Back in the days of the Old Testement, everyone was looking for ways to insure that their particular peoples would not become extinct. They fought disease, death in childbirth, infant mortality, starvation and being answerable to the elements. For men to waste their sperm on anything other than procreation was an "abomination". This includes masturbation, of course.

Look around: Orthodox Jews still have a crapload of kids (my grandfather was one of 5 boys). Catholics are also the be-fruitful-and-multiply crowd. It's a completely obsolete sensibility now that there are 6 billion of us and we mostly live well past our first few years and women can have babies from ages 10 till 45 now!!!! But you are absolutely on the money, anyone with a modicom of knowledge re anthropology can see it.

[Riktor]

110. Nature Vs. Nurture

It is an age-old debate that has plagued psychology and philosophy for centuries. While I tend to go with most modern psychologists in believing most human behavior is a function of nurture, one simply cannot deny that we are animals and subject to the same biological rules that govern every other species on the this planet. To completely ignore biology in favor of a purely sociological explanation of sexism and homophobia is nothing more than self-imposed ignorance. It disregards a significant portion of the root cause of inequality, and as such, is doomed to failure.

[pink-o]

126. Well, it depends on how much one validates evolution...

....members of species that have survived to present day have done so because their innate traits are most compatible with their environment.

That's not a belief system. That's a fact.

And back in the day, xenophobia--the root of ALL bigotry--served us well. In our little social and family groups, if we encountered anyone foreign they probably were a threat. They were there to take our food, our territory and maybe even our women if they looked strong and breedable. To immediately fear and go after foreigners was needed as a survival skill. Because of the external conditions, our internal instincts were modified to correspond.

Whether that's nature or nurture, really: does it matter? They're like conjoined twins, like the chicken and the egg, they can't be separated or put in any order. We don't really care why homosexuality occurs, point is it happens in every species and is about as important to a social order as being left-handed or blue-eyed. I'm just sayin that I believe the roots of homophobia all come from human need to reproduce and propagate our species.

[Riktor]

150. Agreed, but the problem is...

... when people start speaking about "human nature", a significant portion of the population freaks right the hell out. Biological determinism has been used to justify some of the worst abuses mankind has ever been made to suffer, and for that reason, people view it with a skeptical eye. In fact, I was just told biological determinism is not valid because "it has been used to justify slavery" (scroll down the thread, it's down there somewhere).

To that, I can only respond with, read "The Mismeasure of Man" by Stephen Jay Gould. We may be animals and we may be genetically predisposed to certain behaviors, but we have the power to rationalize, to learn at an exponential rate, which something few, if any, other animals truly possess. If a monk can disregard the penultimate biological drive, the will to survive, and set himself ablaze in protest, then it is possible to overcome practically any biological impulse through sheer force of will.

In which case, you're correct. What does it matter if homophobia is an anachronistic evolutionary adaptation? We have shown ourselves capable of rising above it, and the only way to go from here is up.

[Terran]

129. You said it better than I could

I was grasping for how to express this:

But, to overcome our less desirable evolutionary traits, we must first understand them, and frankly, Andrea Dworkin was woefully ignorant in her descriptions of human sexuality. For some reason, she kept trying to describe sex as a social construct when it is clearly an innate biological mechanism.

I have not ready of Dworkin's work, but based on what was quoted by the OP, you have hit the nail on the head, so to speak. It's impossible to escape completely the biological and evolutionary imperatives built into our sexuality (short of a surgeon's knife), and yet so many people do want to not admit that aspect is there.

I was going to point out in a prior post (that was victim to the BACK button) that Dworkin fails to admit the simple fact that "the f***", as she so ominously puts it, is something both women AND men are physically hardwired to enjoy. And the enjoyment is there for a damn good reason.

[Riktor]

134. There's a reason feminism tends to ignore biology

Most feminists, at least those of the past few decades, have placed biology in a black box never to be opened. It is their contention that men and women are inherently "equal", that our roles in society are determined entirely by social norms dictated to the masses by the patriarchs in control.

As a psychologist, I have to admit that in the "nature v. nurture" debate, most human behaviors are a function of societal influence. However, when it comes to gender and sex, biology plays a huge role, and feminists of Dworkin's vein purposefully ignore it because biology suggests that men and women are not the same, that our brains are wired differently in minute, yet important ways.

Let me give you an example.

A few decades ago, a woman gave birth to twin boys and opted to have them circumcised. The first boy went through the operation without a hitch, but the attending nurse severely mucked up the second. She had severely burned the boy's penis with a cauterizing scalpel.

Enter the feminists. They back a psychologist who insists all behavior is a function of societal influence, and he visits this woman and convinces her to have her child's gender reassigned. From then on out, she had one boy and "girl".

Now, the feminists held this up to be a true triumph, that there was really no difference whatsoever between the minds of men and women. Realistically, they should have waited for the child to reach puberty. The boy, now grown up, confesses he never felt comfortable doing "girl" things. He wanted to play with action figures, hated wearing dresses, could not tolerate sitting down to urinate, and finally, found himself attracted to women. All of this happened while he was under the impression he was female.

Later on, while an adult, his mother confessed to him that he was born a boy and she had his gender reassigned hoping he could live a "normal" life.


If Dworkin's "theories" (and I use that term loosely, as her work more closely resembles "speculation") held true, that "male" and "female" are nothing more than societal in nature, this child should have accepted itself as female. However, it did not. The child seemed to realize, on a biological level, what it was, and what it was supposed to do.

Dworkin was not a psychologist. She was a literature major, a battered wife, a prostitute, then a feminist. The vitriol of her work reflects her turbulent past, but that does not supplant empirical research. As popular as she is, her work is literally without any scholarly merit whatsoever. Anyone who tries to reform society based on Dworkin's drivel is doomed to failure, as it does not address the true, biological cause of inequality between the sexes.

[Terran]

139. Very interesting

When I mentioned the "surgeon's knife", I wasn't thinking about gender reassignment but rather the possible effect of castration on male sexuality. But it's more than just the gonads, it's the brain too, of course. I assume the boy in question would have had his testes removed as part of the process, and yet he still turned out to be male, in his own mind.

In my post that didn't make it, I too questioned the status of Dworkin's work as a "theory". Clearly any 'theorizing' about human sexuality that discounts biology is, well, f****d. =]

And not to allude to the ongoing porn thread industry at DU, but it seems to me that anyone who acknowledges the roll of biology in human sexuality ought not to be too surprised or outraged by the way pornography has saturated our culture. Pornography is a human invention that, to me, almost exactly parallels the invention writing, because it makes manifest, or externalizes, an internal mental process. The process which writing externalizes is ideation, or more simply, thinking. The process that pornography externalizes is eroticization, that form of ideation that makes the mechanism of procreation (and thus human evolution) work.

[Riktor]

143. On Pornography

I'm glad you brought pornography into this discussion.

Dworkin's views on porn are, like the rest of her views, informed primarily by her own experiences as a sex worker. These views are not substantiated by academic research and predictably fall flat on their face when confronted with any sort of scientific scrutiny.

Of all the pornography studies I have read, not a single one confirms Dworkin's views. There was one I recall reading a while back, though I don't have it on hand, which suggested a correlation between violent pornography and diminished empathy towards women, but the correlation was minor enough to not be of statistical significance.

As demonstrated by the numerous sex scandals plaguing the Republican party in the past few years, sexual repression manifests in abnormal behaviors, particularly paraphilias. In many cases, pornography is seen as a boon given these circumstances, as it allows the release of pent-up sexual urges in a non-destructive manner. Thus, it can be suggested that masturbation, and by extension pornography, is nature's way of safeguarding society against our other inherent urges. Of course, this carries the potential of abuse. There are instances of men completely withdrawing from all attempts to secure a mate, content with their immense pornography collections. This may, in part, explain the taboo placed on masturbation by our Judeo-Christian forebears.

Like you, I'm quite stunned that in this day of age, people still take the work of Dworkin seriously. As Theodosius Dobzhansky once wrote, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution". Here we have ostensibly intelligent people fawning over Dworkin, utterly convinced sex, a biological activity, is nothing more than a social tool men use to abuse women. Frankly, it is just as nonsensical as creationism.

[raccoon]

127. Ditto. nt

[NMMNG]

5. Indeed

Why is it that lesbians are often ignored (or the subject of erotic fantasies) by the very people who castigate gay men? Women are already inferior, so for them to be with one another is not such a great crime except to some who think it audacious for a woman to scorn the advances of men. However, for a man do degrade himself by receiving another man as would a woman--that's the ultimate depravity.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

10. the sexuality of woman is considered irrelevant in society

except in that it pleasures men, this is why i think lesbians are typically ignored and on the whole less hated.

[NMMNG]

15. Essentially

Except that women bring pleasure to men we are to be asexual or ignored.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

36. yup. unless you are a butch girl in which case you are to be super hated.

[whoneedstickets]

107. I've frankly never understood the Butch thing?

I mean a women decides to seek a lesbian relationship, presumably because of an attraction to women (or an aversion to males?). Then why would she choose a 'pseudo male' figure for a partner? If she was attracted to the male characteristics that butch women project then why not be with a man? To each his or her own I suppose.

Rather than being hated, Butch women are largely derided for aspiring to something they apparently reject.

[Der Blaue Engel]

115. Your confusion is based on some common, but cliched, misconceptions

Firstly, women do not "decide to seek a lesbian relationship" any more than they "decide to seek a heterosexual relationship." They have attractions, like men do, to one or the other sex or both and generally have always been this way, whether they have come out earlier or later in lafe. Nor do we have relationships with each other because of an aversion to males. It's actually not about you at all. ;)

Secondly, a butch woman is not a pseudo male, and butch women are not aspiring to be men. (Although this concept can of course become complicated by transgender issues, as transmen are often perceived as being, and may initially identify as, butch women.)

Here's a good overview of the butch/femme dichotomy:

Criticism of butch-femme was usually based on the claim that these identifications are an attempt to replicate heterosexuality by designating one member of a couple as male (the butch) and the other as female (the femme). Even today this argument is frequently aired. However, it is highly problematic because of its own underlying assumption of heteronormativity--that is, the tenet that heterosexuality is normal, and that all other forms of sexuality are only weak imitations of it. Butch-femme need not be an imitation of anything; it is a unique way of living and loving.

While it is impossible to define strictly the essence of butchness, one may examine characteristics that many butches share. More than simply a mode of dressing or a preference in the bedroom, butch identity is often predicated upon a kind of androgynous, powerful energy.

Butches may cross-dress and crop their hair not because they want to be men, but because they are expressing a different way of being a woman, or simply of being gendered. Rather than attempting to replicate traditional masculinity and heterosexuality, butches present a challenge to both in their rejection of how the dominant culture has decided a woman should look and act.

More: http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/butch_femme_ssh.html

[La Lioness Priyanka]

121. why is it so necessary for a girl to be girly? some of us are uncomfortable in girliness some of us

revel in it.

stereoytping how women should behave is sexist.

butch girls are not trying to be men, they are just trying to be themselves. butch girls are androgynous not male.


though from your post it sounds like you know nothing about the gay community.

i frankly dont see why you would post something so obnoxious.

[Terran]

130. Right

Because butch women openly advertise the fact that they have no interest in the only thing a man feels he can (should/must) give them. (Straight) men don't like that kinda rejection vewy much.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

131. yes. exactly.

[Triana]

105. Very true. Women's sexual pleasure and womens' sexuality is an afterthought at very best....

...and then only as it directly relates to providing pleasure to men. Women's health, when considered at all, is often considered only in reference to and in terms of reproduction, not sexuality.

Sexuality and sexual health is not thought to be imperative for women, as it is for men. This outlines (but does not directly state) that the objective is for men to use women for their own ends, and that women - and their sexual health or desires or needs are not important - not to be considered as a primary subject unto itself - separate from what it provides for a man/men.

There is a very LOUD understatement in these attitudes. People like to ignore that it's there or deny it. But it's THERE. And the first step to tearing down this oppressive, abusive attitude is to first, ACKNOWLEDGE it. The first step to solving ANY problem (and this IS a problem) is admitting that it exists.

And - it exists.

[question everything]

108. I have often thought that if pregnancy

did not result from sexual intercourse, that the right wingers would not be that rabid about abortion. It is not about "baby killing" but about controlling women's sexuality.

[blonndee]

6. Quite intriguing and familiar from some of my studies.

I don't like what she ultimately concludes about what heterosexual sex "is," and I also take issue with her position on porn, but I do like this excerpt you've posted. Very thought-provoking.

[Captain Hilts]

9. Men fear being physically violated. 'Nuff said. nt

[La Lioness Priyanka]

11. bullshit. 'nuff said.

[The Magistrate]

12. Except Those Who Enjoy Penetration, Sir

An appreciable minority view, at least, when all is said and done....

It is never wise in sexual matters to take one's own feelings as the universal norm.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

13. yes, i am sure big huge men beat up young skinny boys/bois because they are hugely afraid of being

violated.

nonsense.

[The Magistrate]

19. A Couple Of Things About That, Ma'am

Males exist in a state of competition with one another, and in competition there are necessarily winners and losers, and the losers greatly outnumber the winners. The marker of this competion among males is the sense of masculinity, of being a real man, of being more of a man than other males. Because most are not really 'more of a man' than their fellows, there will always be a sense of hollowness, of pretence, in the sense of self among many males, a feeling of trying very hard without much tangible reward. Persons laboring under such feelings will feel great resentment at someone who seems not be making the same efforts they are making, and fear they are failing in. To such males, an open 'femme' homosexual male is someone who has opted out of the game entirely, and is getting by without any of the angst over 'being a man' that weighs so heavily on them, and it makes them angry, in the same way that a person who works two jobs to support a family often angrily resents someone who gets a welfare check.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

30. which is to say sir, there is no fear of violation, but indeed sir, a desire to dominate

and prove dominance.

which brings me back to my earlier point: bullshit about fear of violation.

[The Magistrate]

33. Close Enough, Ma'am

My purpose was simply to try and convey an 'inside view', so to speak, since in my experience, women's take on the inner life of men is seldom any better than men's take on the inner life of women, and so a great deal of theorizing across the divide misses the mark entirely.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

35. i think you are wrong sir. studies have proved that there are more difference

intra gender than inter gender.

which is to say we each have more individual differences in behavior than we do as a group, male or female.

so when a bad and stupid argument, is made by a male, my point that it is a stupid argument is perfectly valid, even if i am female.

[The Magistrate]

40. We Seem To Be Talking Past One Another, Ma'am

It had seemed to me we were in agreement on disagreeing with the simple proposition you called 'bullshit'....

[NMMNG]

14. They do?

Funny how they don't mind being violators. :shrug:

Not that I'm suggesting that you are one, or that no women violate. It's just curious that you should state only that men fear being physically violated.

Or are you suggesting homosexuality and male rape are the same thing?

[Katherine Brengle]

25. It's perceived violation.

Violation, in generic terms, means an infringement, a distortion of meaning, a desecration. In these terms, all human beings fear violation, but because women are the class expected to accept violation, only men are perceived as having need to fear it. Women must accept it as part of their "nature" while men, being sovereign individuals with well-delineated boundaries, must NOT accept it, lest they become like women.

The violation is not purely physical. It is all-encompassing. The violation that begins as a physical act becomes a social force.

[The Magistrate]

29. And Yet, Ma'am, Some Experience Being Penetrated As Controlling, Even Dominating, The Other

As reducing the other to a mere brute exertion, as controlling a thing the other must have and cannot otherwise obtain....

People perceive things differently, and this is as true of sexuality as it is of anything else. Treating one's own feelings as normative for all is always the road of folly.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

31. but sir pretending that men are violent towards gay men, for self preservation

is beyond folly.

it is sir, shifting the onus of homophobia in society from the homophobe to the individual gay man.

[The Magistrate]

34. It Is Not Self-Preservation, Ma'am

It is the externalizing of resentment at a private sense of failure to measure up, that things are so arranged a great many will necessarily feel. It is the most shameful confession of weakness possible in a man, to my way of thinking, to act out in such a manner. It is in no way the fault of the individual attacked.

[Katherine Brengle]

39. I'm not sure how we disagree?

It seems that what you are saying is very much the same as what I and the author above are saying.

Am I missing something?

[The Magistrate]

47. Answering That, Ma'am, Would Depend On What We Were Actually Talking About

The text you set for the beginning of this discussion seems to me to fail at grasping what is going on in the Old Testament strictures concerning male homosexuality, and there is no point in repeating my earlier description of my objections on that score.

Later comment picking up the theme that it is fear of bodily violation in the form of sexual penetration, and psychic consequences of same, which lies at the root of homophobia among men, again seems to me to miss the point of what is actually going on in the minds of men who display these tendencies. The real root of it is a feeling they are not as successful in competition with other males for the rungs near or at the top of the pack as they would like to be, and resentment of those who to them do not seem to be engaging at all in the competition that so causes them such distresses, since in their perception, people who are not involved in the competition they fear they are failures at save themselves a lot of grief that they endure, and would like not to endure, but cannot see any way out from under. That this is foolish, even delusional, seems to me so obvious as to not need saying, but people often act on the basis of foolish, even delusional, beliefs and feelings, so to say something is foolish or delusional does not disqualify it as a motivating factor for human behavior.

The more general question is whether Ms. Dworkin's own feelings concerning sexual penetration of herself have much value in producing a general description of relations between the sexes, or genders, if you prefer, in our present-day society. It does not seem to me that they do. Too many people report feelings very different from her's about sexual penetration, and her view offers no way to accept these, and can only dismiss them as being false in some sense or other, since they differ from her own feelings, which she presents as axiomatic and necessarily normative for everyone else. It boils down to saying 'if you don't think as I do, you're just wrong', and that will always lead more to raising heat than shedding light on a subject. This does not mean she is not an acute observer, and does not present an analysis that has some value, and it certainly does not mean she is not an excellent writer. But it hardly inclines me to grant her anything resembling the final word on the subject.

[Katherine Brengle]

65. I think you are seeing what you want to see, to be honest.

And I find your use of "ma'am" repeatedly in this thread to be condescending rather than respectful, whether or not that is your aim.

There is much more in the chapter that I excerpted from - this is, by its nature, an incomplete portion of the text, which happens to speak to a considerably deeper range of related issues.

Obviously 4 paragraphs cannot sum up the entire analysis, and to assume that this is all she says about the qualities of homophobia (she does not frame it as a discussion of homophobia, these are my words) is remarkably short-sighted and naive.

I also don't need to be patted on the head as per the last bit of your post - I also don't think that the issue is simply "sexual penetration" - the issue is domination, played out in sexual intercourse, and dragged into social dogma. This is far from simplistic. She had a very clear understanding that not all humans are of like mind, not all men and not all women, and that experience differs for all humans - but also that the power dynamic in society as we know it is as it is, and it really isn't a matter of opinion - one can see very clearly in our social order who is on top and who is not - it doesn't even take a keen observer. It isn't the sex itself that is harmful - it's the politics of the sex, the history of how it has been used, the psychology of those who engage in it.

[The Magistrate]

70. Of Whom Could That Not Be Said, Ma'am?

It is certainly true of Ms. Dworkin as it is of anyone else: people do indeed see what they are inclined, or suited, or shaped, to see, and typically find the world a mirror of themselves in most ways....

"Make the appropriate gesture, Al, and the constable hand of the past will be lifted from you."

[Katherine Brengle]

76. I'm glad you took the time

to really read my post, in which I happened to mention that I find your tone condescending, yet you continued using said tone.

Which means, for me, conversation is over.

(Of course we all have a starting point for any analysis, but the feminist viewpoint is most often assumed to be inherently wrong in the public eye, and hence the easiest to throw under the bus.)

[Whisp]

90. No, Sir, No!

I take that ma'am/sir stuff with a bit of sandpaper as well. Sir certainly has a much more 'dignified' tone (thanks to all the sirs that write the books)

[noamnety]

100. One more in that group.

I don't understand the compulsion to go out of one's way to label every person as male or female in every interaction.

It's about as respectful as saying "Well, white person, let me tell you my opinion ... " Or "Dear black person, this is where we differ."

I don't understand the "respect" part of making a person's gender a key point in all communications with them. I also read it as extremely condescending, whether or not it's the intent.

[Whisp]

101. you said it.!

dang. that is exactly what I meant in my abbreviated way.
'dear white person, dear black person'.

but you say it much better and Thank You!

yes, Ma'am! most likely someone is asked to clean out his ears or something. sissy stuff.
yes, Sir! most likely someone is asked to clean out a country or something. manly stuff.

[UncleSepp]

118. ROTFLMAO! Thank you!

I like The Magistrate very much, and I do admire him for his use of language. It's refreshing, different, and enjoyable. However, I LOVE your comment. If you don't mind, I'll share it with my friends. :-)

[question everything]

138. To each his/her own

The Magistrate has been addressing DUers like that for a long time and most of us appreciate his desire to address people with respect. Yes, Sir and Ma'am are a form of respect. And if you are having problems with this, then this is your problem.

I'd rather have this form of addressing than the other forms of insults that are so common on DU, obviously hiding behind the anonymity of the Internet.

Do you slam a door held open for you in the face of the gentleman holding it, too?

[noamnety]

140. It's no longer a form of respect

if someone has, as in this thread, clearly said they don't personally wish to be addressed that way, and they continue to do so. There's nothing respectful about addressing people in a way that annoys them, after they've said clearly that it's annoying. It would be like calling someone named James "Jimmy." The use of Jimmy isn't itself disrespectful, some people go by that, but once they say they don't like being called that, then it's rude, inconsiderate, and arrogant to continue to do so.

Additionally, it's rarely considered respectful to assume the default is "sir" - just as it's considered rude to address a letter to "sir" if you don't know the recipient's gender. In the absence of any information on me, for instance, they initially addressed me as "sir."

I don't consider it respectful to assume male as the default norm for everyone, and female as a deviation from that norm. I consider it insulting and sexist.

[Katherine Brengle]

145. Exactly --

one can be respectful in conversation and debate without using gendered language, and if asked not to, the reasonable thing to do would be to STOP.

It's like there's no boundary - I say I do not wish to be spoken to in a certain way, and it is completely ignored.

[The Magistrate]

116. The Parenthetical Is Interesting, Ma'am

It seems you consider the terms 'feminist viewpoint' and "Ms. Brengle's viewpoint' to be interchangeable, but in fact they are not. There are a great many feminist viewpoints, some compatible with your's, other differing from your's, in some cases to the point of being hostile to it. Thinking that your views are not particularly apt, and even rejecting them in some particulars, is far from finding feminism 'inherently wrong'....

[Riktor]

119. But...

Andrea Dworkin loses credibility in the realm of psychology when one considers that fact she wasn't a psychologist. She was a literature major. The "theories" you have displayed are no more scientifically falsifiable than the worst kind of popular tripe eschewed by the likes of, say, Dr. Phil. She takes a decidedly Freudian view of relations between the sexes, without stopping to consider how wildly unsubstantiated Freud's theories were.

She seems to have gone to great lengths attempting to connect the physical act of sex with how women and homosexuals are treated by heterosexual men, but there is no possible way of verifying any of it, and there are plenty of verifiable theories that do a much better job of explaining these things.

I'll paraphrase:

1) Treatment of women:

Anthropological studies have concluded that in all human societies, women are of lower social standing than men. However, some societies afford women more rights than other societies, and studies have shown that this is directly proportional to the level of female involvement in the process of gathering resources. Native American women in the Southwest were directly involved in the harvesting of staple crops and were afforded rights comparable to those of modern-day American women. On the other hand, Inuit women, taking no part whatsoever in the dangerous whale and seal hunts that fed the tribes, were afforded very few rights. In fact, they had no legal recourse whatsoever if they were raped. The men gathered the food, without which the entire tribe would perish, and thus were of the most immediate importance to the tribe's survival.

With that in mind, it is time to look at human sexuality from the perspective of evolutionary psychology. Traditionally, a human sexual relationship serves the sole purpose of passing on genetic information, ensuring the survival of our species. This is not a conscious process. It is an innate drive, programmed into the genetic make-up of every sexually reproductive species on the planet. What brings two people together is an unspoken biological contract that stipulates, "HE will protect and provide for the children she bears, and SHE will not bear the child of anyone but him."

The key words here are "protect" and "provide". Compared to other species, humans rate highly in Male Parental Involvement (MPI). It is therefore safe to say that a male who expends resources on a child that is not his is an evolutionary failure. After all, those resources would have better spent ensuring that male passed his genes onto as many children as he possibly could. This is why women are held to different sexual standards than men, the Madonna-Whore Dichotomy, as it is called. A woman who enjoys sex is potentially untrustworthy, as man's ultimate goal is to ensure his partner bears him no children other than his own.

Since human males compete through shows of material wealth and physical power, it therefore make sense, from an evolutionary perspective, keep the resources in the hands of men. To allow women access to resources would invariably raise their standards when seeking a mate, possibly cutting off a portion of poor males who would otherwise be able to attract a mate.

Now, the fun part. In all polygynous societies where a large portion of the poor male population remains unmarried (as the rich monopolize the women), crime rates are astronomical. Drug use, burglary, murder, rape, you name it, it is there. All sorts of nasty behaviors rise to the surface of a human male when he repressed sexually... just ask Larry Craig.

So, in a nutshell, America is not unique. Women everywhere stand below men on the social totem pole, which suggests the root cause is biological in nature, not social. Traditional human mating displays require the male to impress the female by his physical prowess and his wealth, which not only drives men to acquire as much wealth and power as possible, but also establishes men as the protectors, and by extension "rulers", of mankind. Men are not "afraid" to show their feminine side, it is merely uncomfortable because it runs contrary to everything our unconscious tells us.

2. Treatment of Homosexuals.

I've already gone over this one, so I'll try to keep it short. We need to breed to survive. End of Story.

Mankind's opposition to male-male sexual relationships goes back a long way, to an era when disease, warfare, and on-the-job injury took an unimaginable toll on society. In order for a species to increase in size, it needs to maintain a base number of organisms. That old axiom, "I wouldn't fuck you if you were the last man on earth", is pure bullshit. Humankind could not survive if there were a mere two people left on earth. If a population dips beneath that base number, it is adios muchacos, game over, evolutionary failure.

Thus, every man in a prehistoric village needed a wife, and he needed to have children in order for that village to survive. Men couldn't be wasting their sperm on other men, or even on their hand for that matter. It's breed or die.




Now, I've paraphrased and left a lot out, but if you need any clarifications, check out Dr. Robert Wright's "The Moral Animal". It covers the gamut of human sexual relationships in the scope of Darwinian evolution.

I also want to note here that while on the issue of intersexual relations I believe evolution and biology plays an immense role, morally, I do not support the system as it stands. While we cannot deny we are animals and governed by the same biological processes as every other living creature on Earth, we were blessed with a Cerebral Cortex, and a great many of us have demonstrated the ability to overcome our genetic predispositions. But, in order to forge ahead in a progressive direction, we have to understand ourselves, so that we may accurately find a solution to the problem. Andrea Dworkin was fighting the right fight, but she showed up with the wrong weapon and on the wrong battlefield.

[Katherine Brengle]

146. Sorry, I stopped reading at "evolutionary psychology" - I had to run to the lav and puke.

EvPsych is about as respectable as flat earth theory.

[Riktor]

149. How Scientific of you

It's good to see ostensibly intelligent people debating the finer points of scientific theory instead of falling back on fallacious arguments from omniscience. Too bad it isn't happening here.

[noamnety]

147. This same argument of naturalization of roles

and biological inferiority has also been used to justify slavery.

[Riktor]

148. Straw Man

Nowhere did I mention that anyone is "biologically inferior", merely that sexuality is driven by natural processes developed over thousands of years of evolutionary adaptation.

[noamnety]

151. this argument here:

"Women everywhere stand below men on the social totem pole, which suggests the root cause is biological in nature"

is at the root of similar arguments justifying slavery: It's "natural" for white men to be above all others on the social totem pole. Not surprisingly, this is an argument that is usually put forth by white men. (Mis)quoting a friend here: Power reproduces power, in invisible ways.

I have a disagreement with this: "All sorts of nasty behaviors rise to the surface of a human male when he repressed sexually... just ask Larry Craig."

The assumption is that if men just had more access to sex and porn (if women would just be more sexually available, or if gay men had more access to other gay men's bodies), they would be less violent.

And this: "Men couldn't be wasting their sperm on other men, or even on their hand for that matter."

Given that men come with a seemingly endless supply of sperm, I don't see the logic in that sentence at all.

[Riktor]

152. You confuse "explanation" with "justification"

"Women everywhere stand below men on the social totem pole, which suggests the root cause is biological in nature"

is at the root of similar arguments justifying slavery: It's "natural" for white men to be above all others on the social totem pole. Not surprisingly, this is an argument that is usually put forth by white men. (Mis)quoting a friend here: Power reproduces power, in invisible ways.

Nowhere was the subjugation of women "justified", merely explained. You injected your personal opinion on the matter into my argument in some feeble attempt to paint me as some racist/misogynist asshole, which I appreciate none too much.

By the way, Stephen Jay Gould, a prominent evolutionary biologist, wrote a book called "The Mismeasure of Man", in which he debunks social Darwinism. I think it is worth the read.

I have a disagreement with this: "All sorts of nasty behaviors rise to the surface of a human male when he repressed sexually... just ask Larry Craig."

The assumption is that if men just had more access to sex and porn (if women would just be more sexually available, or if gay men had more access to other gay men's bodies), they would be less violent.

Again, you are injecting your personal opinion into my words. This claim is not based on "assumption", it is based on empirical evidence, which clearly shows an inverse relationship between access to women and violent crime.

Besides, you are neglecting here that your "theory" operates on the myopic assumption that these "white men" you mention seek power for no other reason than power's sake. It's a cop out of a theory, operating much in the same way as "God works in mysterious ways". Why not go the extra mile and try to answer this question: What motivates these "white men" to acquire wealth and power?

And this: "Men couldn't be wasting their sperm on other men, or even on their hand for that matter."

Given that men come with a seemingly endless supply of sperm, I don't see the logic in that sentence at all.

I misspoke. Men have an endless supply of sperm, but they do not have an endless supply of time or resources. Time and resources spent on sexual relationships with other men is time and resources wasted from the vantage point of survival.


You either fail to realize or refuse to see that human beings are animals. Most people have no problem readily admitting a bird, a snake, or even a small mammal acts primarily on instinct, beneficial traits passed down from parent to offspring. However, when somebody suggests that human beings, being animals as well, may retain similar qualities, he or she is labeled a misogynist racist asshole without even being given the benefit of the doubt.

You look at "human nature" as something concrete and unchanging, which runs contrary to the very concept behind evolution. Organisms that don't change, that remain constant, do not survive. Human "nature" is fluid, specifically designed to change based on the demands of a changing environment. THAT is the driving force behind natural selection. Things like xenophobia, homophobia, and male dominance are vestigial practices that may have been useful at one point in the past. Now, with our environment as it is, they are useless. However, you cannot expect thousands of years worth of inherited treats to dissipate over night. As these bigoted practices become more and more obsolete, they will vanish, and we'll finally be gone of this bullshit once and for all.

[Terran]

154. One issue I have...

Men have an endless supply of sperm, but they do not have an endless supply of time or resources. Time and resources spent on sexual relationships with other men is time and resources wasted from the vantage point of survival.

I think this is the one area of discussion where I disagree with you--as far as this being the source for what we commonly call homophobia (a loaded term, IMO). I think we're all pretty much guessing at this anyway, so here's my 'guess':

In the prehistoric village you described earlier (and I'm thinking this is very ancient, e.g., just-discovered-fire-ancient), I would suppose that male-female bonds are deemed vital because of their importance to social organization, child rearing and survival. But there would be stretches of time when females would either be deemed sexually unavailable because of pregnancy, or when there might not be enough females of age to be potential mates with all the males of age. So it seems to me that male homosexual sex would have been a natural outlet in those instances. Such activity probably never involved long-term 'emotional' relationships of a sort that would interfere with survival activities, but probably just served as a means to achieve sexual release. And given the way male bonding works, I'm betting this later had a role in the development of early warrior cultures (a whole other topic, but related, I think). So I don't really see your explanation that male homosexual sex was too much of drain on survival activities as being likely, and therefore not a plausible root of homophobia.

Basically, I have always felt that because nature made it possible for men to have sexual pleasure with other men, there is nothing in nature I can identify that would tend to create conditions that make homosexual sex taboo. I think it's a purely cultural phenomenon. I don't have an explanation for a cultural cause, but I suspect it's linked mostly to the rise of the monotheistic religions.

[Riktor]

156. I can agree with that...

Well, it is likely that early man was polygynous, so I don't think unavailable women would really be that much of an issue. Besides, as we've read in the Bible, or seen in the painting "Rape of the Sabine Women", if women are unavailable in one village, the males merely take a walk to the next village over and steal their women.

However, as for a biological explanation of homophobia, who knows? It could just be an extension of xenophobia, our prehistoric defense mechanism. A good case study would be Ancient Greece or Ancient Rome, where homosexual pederasty was not only acceptable, but during some periods, encouraged. The Greeks and Romans saw this loving "mentor-student" relationship as a method of strengthening the bonds between the old and young (i.e., the soldier and the man who sends him to war) and instilling discipline in the country's youth. However, this practice still met with harsh criticism, especially from Socrates, and goes in and out of vogue over time until Emperor Justinian put an end to it in the fifth century CE.

[Annces]

32. Exactly

In a book I am reading on goddesses, it says that the whole Greek pantheon of goddesses were knocked down from their power by the male gods, with rape and turned into monsters also.

[noamnety]

55. This post is at the heart of it.

Without misogyny, there can be no homophobia. And that misogyny comes out in unexpected ways when people try to explain or justify homophobia. "Men don't like to be violated" includes the perception that being penetrated is being violated, and that penetrating another person encompasses violating them.

[Katherine Brengle]

66. Well said.

[Katherine Brengle]

24. I think it's bigger than that --

I think there are men who fear it, and men who welcome it. It's the law of the social order at large that fears it, not necessarily all individual men.

We have distinct classes of human beings, those who dominate and those who are dominated -- as a society, we don't like it when a member/members of one class transgress because it threatens us as a group (we perceive a threat anyway).

[Whisp]

87. they fear the 'feminine' side of them.

me, I don't fear the 'masculine' side of me at all. I like it.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

99. I disagree that's the major basis of homophobia

Although I think it may be part of it in some.

I think the typical "macho man" believes he could physically take down anyone who attempted to manhandle him, especially someone who would be interested in having gay sex with him.

I think the majority of homophobes are more afraid of wanting to explore their sexuality consensually, with no need of force. They are afraid of the temptation of kissing another man, and finding they like it, and then it going further. Likely because they have had that fantasy.

Look at Larry Craig and Ted Haggard......there's nothing there to suggest they are afraid of sexual interaction with another man.....

[aikoaiko]

16. I don't know when it was written, but I'm sure the writer would be happy to see sodomy laws..

..be repealed.


One would think that as sodomy laws have been repealed, if they are "important, perhaps essential, in maintaining for men a superiority or civil and sexual status over women", then homophobia and mysogyny would be decreasing too.

[xchrom]

18. interesting read the responses so far.

from someone who is not much interested in being defined by the heteronormative universe.

[Glorfindel]

20. Interesting theories, indeed. Thank you for a thoughtful and

provocative post. One is left to wonder, however, why some of the most vocal homophobes are women. After all, if they are nothing but victims and/or property, the practice of "sodomy" should appear to them as a welcome relief from their own persecution. I think the Magistrate has hit the nail on the head: The homosexual practices during worship by the priests and priestesses of cults in neighboring nations were viewed by the writers of the Bible (of whatever historical period) as threats to their own angry, peevish monotheistic deity, who, by his own admission, didn't like to be challenged in any way.

[Katherine Brengle]

27. Collaboration -- sometimes playing along is the easiest way to survive

in a hostile environment.

We all have to make the best of it - for some, that means fighting. For some, it means capitulating in order to have an existence we can live with. It doesn't make it right, but it does explain why some women make these choices.

For women, we often have a small list of choices, all of which are bad, that we must choose the best of in order to survive.

[Annces]

21. Very interesting

I have also made note that some cultures such as Filipino are more accepting of homosexuality than the Chinese culture. And I have wondered what the difference is, that it may shed light on the subject.

[NaturalHigh]

37. Let me guess: Dworkinism.

The school of thought that says all men are scum and women who disagree with that thought are either scum or brainwashed by the patriarchy.

[Katherine Brengle]

41. Have you actually read her work?

Somehow I doubt it. I held the same view of her until I actually decided to read some of her writing for myself, and I have found that most of what she has said has been mischaracterized and/or flat out lied about in the media.

For instance, she analyzes the politics of power in sexual relations - while never saying that "all sex is rape" or anything even close to this - but that is how her work has been dismissed by the media.

[NaturalHigh]

44. Yes, I've read her work.

I haven't read her books, but I've read several of her speeches and essays that were posted online by her followers. I agree that I've never seen the phrase "all sex is rape", but I've seen plenty of hatred in her work.

[Katherine Brengle]

63. Hatred for what exactly?

Patriarchy? Domination? The oppression of women?

All worthy of hatred.

Rapists?

Worthy of hatred.

I've never seen anything I'd call illegitimate anger or hatred toward someone/something that did not deserve it.

So, if you are counting legitimate anger and hate, then I'm sure you are spot-on.

[NaturalHigh]

123. Men.

[gaspee]

81. Oh please

Let's all reduce very complicated ideas and thoughts to "she says men are scum so nothing she says has value!" First off, the premise is wrong, secondly, even if she ever said that all men are scum, that doesn't negate everything else she said.

She didn't say this, I'm saying it. All men who think feminists hate men are whiny little entitlement babies who are afraid of women. How's that?

[BlooInBloo]

43. Is this the revolutionary side of the revolutionary/work-in- the-system feminism divide?

[Wcross]

46. This is the true origin of the word homophobia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia
The word homophobia was rarely used early in the twentieth century, and it meant "fear or hatred of the male sex or humankind." In this use, the word derived from the Latin root homo (Latin, "man" or "human") with the Greek ending -phobia ("fear").<10>
In its more recent usage, dating from 1969, "homophobia" derives from the -phobia ending applied, not to the Latin root "homo", but to a shortening of homosexual. (Here, homo comes not from the Latin for "man", but from the Greek for "same"; see homosexual.) The word first appeared in print in an article written for the American Time magazine, 31st October edition. <11> It was used by clinical psychologist George Weinberg, who claims to have first thought of it while speaking at a homophile group in 1965, and was popularized by his book Society and the Healthy Homosexual in 1971. When asked about the meaning of the word in a 2002 interview, he said:
"Homophobia is just that: a phobia. A morbid and irrational dread which prompts irrational behavior flight or the desire to destroy the stimulus for the phobia and anything reminiscent of it."<12>
A possible etymological precursor was homoerotophobia, coined by Wainwright Churchill in Homosexual Behavior Among Males in 1967.

I believe the term is a highly misused one. Most people who do not approve of homosexuality do not fear it. They find it unnatural and therefore condemn it.

[The Magistrate]

49. True Enough, Sir: It Is a Clumsy, And None To Apt, Coinage

But we seem to be stuck with it. And it is true that what people hate, they generally fear, and what they fear, they generally hate....

[Wcross]

53. I hope this doesn't make me a "homophobe".

I am fine with what people do in private. It is none of my business. I am uncomfortable with public displays of affection be it a heterosexual couple or a homosexual couple. I don't want to see anybody swapping spit in public.
I would also be uncomfortable if I was seated in a stall next to ex-senator Craig and he started playing footsie with me.

[Whisp]

91. how uncomfortable would you feel being a woman/girl

and the likelihood of you being raped is just a tad above Footsy footsy scarey.

[xchrom]

68. true enough -- but he does make a very good point --

not every one who hates gay folk is at all afraid of them.

they may be backwards and extremely unsophisticated and undereducated -- but they are not containing any violent ick factor in themselves.

we have done a dis-service to ourselves describing those who would put the boot back on us as ''homophobes''.

[Wcross]

77. I have known true homophobes.

You know, the type that can't deal with the fact that someone has a different sexual preference than themselves. Most people I know accept other people for who they are and not who they love.

[xchrom]

78. indeed -- i personally think that it's very important to not that

not everyone -- maybe not even most -- people who hate us are homophobes.

yes there are some -- but certainly not all.

[NaturalHigh]

51. Thanks for the link.

Dang, somebody really put some time and research into that one. It's amazing what all you can find on wikepedia.

[Katherine Brengle]

67. Semantics,

but still interesting, thank you for sharing.

[Duncan Grant]

72. Why do those people consider heterosexuality "natural"?

Not to thread-jack but:

After reading the last 3 sentences of your post, I asked myself: Who gets to define "unnatural"? Who benefits from the definition?

As a gay man, I find homophobia captures the cultural contempt for "unnatural" people quite clearly. While heterocentrism and heteronormative are more "holistic" terms, they tend to obscure the irrational violence and bigotry used to control "unnatural" people, imho. It is the immediacy of the contempt, violence and bigotry heaped upon gay men which interests me most -- not the historic hair-splitting etymology of homophobia.

I think this idea of "unnatural" is also used to protect the patriarchy. Some men continue to think they understand the limits of a woman's "natural" capacity for autonomy. Some still feel it's unnatural for a woman to be alone or childless, not to mention the idea of competing with men for power and influence!

So, the argument that gay sex is "unnatural" is highly flawed to me -- if not a blatant expression of bigotry and ignorance.

edit: present tense

[Wcross]

79. I apologise.

That is just my take on why people do not approve of homosexuality. They see it as "different" than their own sexuality and therefore not natural behavior. They see sex as a means to reproduce and the reason it is pleasurable is that we wouldn't do it otherwise.
I am a straight male but I support gay rights 100%. I believe you shouldn't be discriminated against in any way. I believe you should have the right to marry if that is your desire. I believe you should be able to adopt children and raise a family. I believe you should be able to have anything a heterosexual couple can have.
I don't want to pick a fight with anyone about it ;-)

[Duncan Grant]

93. No apology necessary.

This is all about the exchange of ideas, isn't it? :)

Thanks for your strong words of support! I want you to know that I realize you're expressing a personal observation about "unnatural" -- not a personally held belief. :thumbsup:

[gaspee]

82. Of couse it's not unnatural

I hate that argument. If we want to go with natural, homosexual acts are to be found in most mamalian species. How much more "natural" can you get?

Straight men hate gay men because they fear being in the place of women.

My personal theory is that most men know exactly how women are treated in society and if homosexuality were accepted, there would be mo clear line between how they are allowed by society to treat women and how they might be treated by other men.

Women have to put up with unwanted come-ons, men acting as if they have the right to appraise every woman they come across for fuckability and then judge them by that fuckability or unfuckability. Women have to put up with being stalked, liberty curtailed (due to predatory men) and a host of other issues that probably never cross most men's minds.

Men know they act as predators toward women and they don't want to be the prey.

Imagine if the innate bisexuality of most people were socially acceptable.

If it were socially acceptable for men to have open sexual relationships with other men, were allowed, as it were, to give each other handjobs when watching the game between quarters... if there were no societal pressure against same sex behavior... well that would open men up to the type of treatment women receive daily.

I am probably not explainging myself too well, here, but I hope I'm at least getting my point across.

[Duncan Grant]

112. I think I understand your point.

Isn't it interesting when men want to insult one another they lash out with "faggot" or "pussy". Hmmm, I wonder why? :sarcasm:

For a man to submit to the will of another man (on virtually any level, but especially the sexual) is -- well, incompatible with our ideals of masculinity. I would agree that most men don't want to be treated as they treat women. That would get ugly real fast, wouldn't it?

[Raejeanowl]

97. Unnatural, Definition Of

I find it profoundly depressing that it is considered ignorant and bigoted to point out the obvious, i.e., that nature itself did not design male bodies to mate with male bodies, or female with female. That people inherently desire to do otherwise or be otherwise is an issue unto itself.

The continuation of the species depends upon the observance of this fact, and I doubt much "thought" went into whom or what the male-female equation socially benefited.

Infer your own definition(s), but please do not defensively assume that the reminder of the basic reproductive unit is a homophobic slur. I didn't write that particular script, and I am busy being "unnatural" in my own ways.

Peace and happiness.

[gollygee]

98. Huh?

The definition of unnatural is "caused by something other than nature". If people are *inherently* desiring to do something, it is caused by nature, and therefore natural for them.

You're thinking of "biologically productive" or something, not "natural".

[Raejeanowl]

103. No

I won't be pushed into drawing negative analogies. I said my piece.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

133. How do you explain homosexuality in nature?

Unnatural nature?

[Duncan Grant]

113. I'd say your definition of "natural" behavior is far more narrow than mine.

I'll refrain from insulting you.

Have a nice day.

[LostinVA]

153. Considering homosexuality shows up in many species, not just human, I would consider it natural

It's a biological trait that some animals have, human or otherwise.

[Hissyspit]

75. "They find it unnatural" - a mild form of fear.

Condemning as unnatural that which is actually natural - irrational.

Phobia.

[Duncan Grant]

114. I couldn't agree more.

Thanks for phrasing that so succinctly. :thumbsup:

[undeterred]

48. So the primary problem is the subjugation of women.

If women are equals, and homosexual men are treated as women, then everybody is treated equally, right?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

58. i think the problem is how you view femininity

and whether you consider it as equal to masculinity

[undeterred]

59. Different, but equal.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

60. sort of and whether you think its necessary for a male to be masculine and a women feminine

and if these roles were reversed could you still respect different but equal.

[undeterred]

61. well, masculine and feminine are more flexible to me

than they are to some people, and my ideas have changed over time and are still changing

I've rejected a lot of things that are traditionally feminine and chosen some things that are masculine.

There are some very unhealthy things in the traditional frames. And of course things get turned upside down when we cross cultures.

Its a huge subject. But I accept the basic idea that the male/female subjugation is a basis for many other kinds of subjugation. And that in between revolutions we can only whittle away at it a little at a time.

[Katherine Brengle]

69. "Different"

Depends on what you mean by that.

"Women are different" is one thing.

"Men and women are different from one another" is another thing.

In our society, the prevailing view is "women are different" from the assumed norm of "man" which is the standard of measurement.

Saying that "men and women are different from one another" is just stating the obvious - there are obvious differences between the sexes. However, we are just two different sexes, not two different species, and the differences are not as vast as social law dictates.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

50. Prior To Lawrence V Texas Some State's Sodomy Laws Applied To Men And Women...

I know there was an early 90's Georgia case where a man was arrested for performing cunnilingus on his wife...

I have seen the historical argument made that the Old Testament prohibitions against sodomy had more to do with condemning acts that wouldn't result in conception than the acts themselves...

[Jed Dilligan]

54. Yes. The OT laws were about maintaining a labor force

for intensive agriculture. Any thing that blocks conception is a no-no. Of course it was never fully enforceable but on the population scale it actually worked. Now we need to learn to have fewer kids, and being gay, like wearing a rubber, is absolutely a good thing.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

56. Right

Because I have seen the argument made by some that Jesus never condemned homosexuality and then I have seen that argument countered by those who cite the Apostle Paul's admonintions against homosexuality. And then I have seen that argument countered by suggesting Paul's goal was to populate the Earth and as we know there's only one way of doing that...

Back to the argument... I think the history of sodomy laws is a bit more complex than reducing it to man's fear of being sodomized...

[Jed Dilligan]

52. This leaves out a lot of cultures that have

subjugation of women but no homophobia.

[Joanne98]

57. That's sounds about right to me!

[Baby Snooks]

62. Don't forget the eunuchs...

"For there are eunuchs, that were so born from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, that were made eunuchs by men: and there are eunuchs, that made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. Matthew 19:12.

At one time the eunuch was very much an accepted part of society, at least in terms of chattel law, and so men who found a young boy attractive merely took him as a slave and then castrated him and called him their eunuch.

That illustrates the insanity of the followers of the God of Abraham, also known as Jews, Christians, and Muslims, and their "holy books" which they misinterpret every time they decide to intrepret them in order to further oppress someone which is most easily seen through chattel law which while no longer a law in this country is nonetheless still a prevailing attitude.

http://www.evilbible.com/

The passage in Matthew as I recall is one of the bases for celibacy of priests. They "spiritually" castrate themselves. Apparently not very successfully.

[xchrom]

64. jesus and the people in israel at that time were fully acquainted with

homosexuality.

it is unlikely that jesus would have used a euphemism for eunuch.
or feminine men -- or much else.

that area of the world was heavily indoctrinated and familiar with a whole host of cultural practises from all over -- and israel was controlled by the greeks for a long time.{and of course the keepers of traditional culture and power were threatened by all outside influences}

one thing is certain -- jesus didn't say anything directly about gay men or women -- and he probably kept close company with gay folk.

i read jesus as being gay -- but that's just me.

[The Magistrate]

71. It Is True, Sir, That Mention Of Homosexuality Is Absent From the Gospels

One must consult Paul to find it mentioned in the New Testament, and his take on it is a trifle odd. He describes it in Romans as a punishment sent by his diety to people who have rejected that diety: as a symptom of something, rather than as a cause of anything, and a symptom the diety has chosen as an apt punishment for an underlying offense of prideful rejection of the diety Paul is devoted to.

[xchrom]

74. as a christian -- paul is difficult for me --

because what christ says is right there -- and paul SEEMS to say things that to me are things that christ wouldn't say.

[blogslut]

83. Paul met the spirit Christ on the road to Damascus

4 years after the crucifixion. That tells me all I need to know about Paul.

EDIT: I exaggerate.

[The Magistrate]

117. Not Being Christian Myself, Sir

This presents no difficulty, my only interest being in what the foundational documets actually say, and how they have actually been acted on down the years by people professing themselves to be guided by them.

"Truth, in religion, is the opinion that has survived."

[xchrom]

122. i don't entirely disagree with your quote about truth and religion.

in fact -- most liberal christians would find little or no conflict with that statement.

i can't speak for other faiths -- but christians who are thoughtful are caught between those things that add to the human spirit and promoting that -- and things that degrade the human spirit. i.e. paul's relationship to women being sort of obvious -- and somewhat but not enirely pertinent to this conversation.

[Nikia]

73. I agree

Homophobia has a lot to do with misogyny.
Thank you for this thread.

[tblue37]

80. Sounds like Andrea Dworkin. (eom)

[NashVegas]

85. Whomever Wrote This Was Coming At it From the Wrong Direction, IMO

The sodomy laws are important, perhaps essential, in maintaining for men a superiority or civil and sexual status over women. They protect men as a class from the violation of penetration; men's bodies have unbreachable boundaries. A capital crime for thousands of years in the Judeo-Christian tradition, viewed with loathing as an obscene violation of male nature, sodomy suggests a nightmare vision of one kind of sexual equality: men used by men as women are in sex to satisfy the lust for dominance expressed in the f***.

What she seems to neglect, at least in the passage you're quoting, is one thing that ties openly homosexual bottoms to happily heterosexual women: they like it. Like it or not, doggy style is an easy way to get to the 'g' spot. It is these subversions, coming out into the open, that have revolutionized societal attitudes in the past 30 years. And yet, sex as discussed openly in the current age has become nearly meaningless, because we have done all we can to remove the various risks associated with sex when we traded out intimacy in favor of hook-ups.


Sometimes, what we think is freeing and empowering is in fact the opposite.

A statement that is never more true than when applied to the "men are bad" school of feminism, IMO.

Playing up sex as the ultimate human potential cheapens what and who we are as human beings and reinforces the social caste system created by our forebears and perpetuated by ourselves.

Sexual drives and expression, however, are among the greatest motivations for progress in our history, for better or worse. Because of Paris' lust, the Greeks had an excuse to invade Troy. Because of Henry VIII's lust, the Catholic Church lost its powergrip in Western European politics. Because a group of homosexuals stood up for themselves and their desires, we had Stonewall.

[Whisp]

86. the term 'fuck you' is used

I am trying to not use that word so much myself, but did liberally in the past, without really thinking What It Really Means.

it's a swear word. one of the worstest.
why?
wishing someone sex is hardly the worst insult.
but wishing dominance and penetration of most private parts is.
'fuck you'.
and a penis is the fuckor image, not a vagina.
there is a fuckee and a fuckor. and guess who gets fucked over all the time.
and getting fucked means violation and everything bad. almost rape. getting fucked with something you bought that isn't up to par, getting fucked over for your promotion. fuck fuck fuck

[Captain Hilts]

95. That's a REALLY good comment. nt

[Whisp]

102. f u = aggression

'you will be impaled with the f stick'. at least that's how I visual the word. I don't see a vagina descending upon a penis with force and domination and power having anywhere near the same meaning. and neither does history.

i'll stick it to you.

I will invade you.

i will Pound some sense into you.

it's quite creepy. but so acceptable.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

88. It's "Funny" That Norman Mailer Is Mentioned In The OP

He also opined that masturbation is a sign of weakness and moral failing...

[cgrindley]

89. Outdated and largely irrelevant

in the vast majority of western nations, homosexuality is no big deal. It's not even an issue in the minds of about 50% of Americans. It is only in certain parts of USA, those parts most dominated by foolish belief, and in other countries who likewise are tied to meaningless superstition that homophobia flourishes.

PS if the writer posted that on an internet discussion forum, it would get pulled for the ridiculous flamebait it is.

[undeterred]

92. This argument provides an explanation as to why

heterosexual men sometimes "rape" homosexual men, and it is parallel to the argument to the explanation as to why heterosexual men sometimes rape women. In both cases the rape is not predominantly about (or motivated by) sexual desire, but in order to show the power one has over the other person.

And if there is another explanation that makes more sense, I'd like to hear it.

[OxQQme]

96. Seen on a bumper sticker:

Fuck You, You Fucking Fucker.
Now, that's power. :o)

[Triana]

104. Also the origin of abusive relationships - whose primary objective is for one person...

...to wield power and control over another. I'm not surprised that mysogeny and homophobia have the same origin. Not at all.

[question everything]

106. Which is why some feminists

view sex (with men, at least) as an act of submission and domination.

(Cannot recall any names right now..)

[Warren DeMontague]

109. Oh, goody. Another anti-sex screed from the "brilliant" Dworkin, disguised as "social commentary".

Let's cut to the chase, here. Andrea Dworkin may not have said "all heterosexual sex is rape" in so many words, but she did say that heterosexual, penetrative sex as practiced on Planet Earth is inherently oppressive, coercive, and downright evil. Essentially, her philosophy can be summed up in one sentence: That any time a male penis comes into contact with the body of a female, all women are harmed and all women are oppressed.

To some, she was "brilliant". To many of the rest of us, she was bat-shit crazy, or at least someone with some serious issues, and quite possibly a dollop of mental illness to boot. A sad figure, perhaps, but certainly not someone whose dubious 'insights' about the pernicious evil of the way the vast majority of the consenting adults on this planet happen to screw should be given a whole lot of credence.

She's right about one thing, (although I don't think she bothers to say it in so many words, busy as she is railing against the evils of penile penetration) homophobia and discrimination against gays and lesbians is wrong. Of course, as Pat Buchanan demonstrates, even a broken clock is right twice a day. And many gay men are also enthusiastic consumers of porn and guilty of "objectifying" other gay men, so one wonders how that plugs into Dworkin and her admirers' pet issue, namely, stopping consenting adults from getting off while looking at pictures of other consenting adults nude or screwing. (I bet you thought this thread was actually about homophobia- surprise! It's not, it's just yet another lame axe-grinding attempt to re-ignite the porn wars here at DU. You can thank me, later, for bringing that to your attention.)

Here are some more quotes from the "brilliant" Ms. Dworkin. Like the song says, Decide Yourself.

Men are distinguished from women by their commitment to do violence rather than to be victimized by it.

No woman needs intercourse; few women escape it.

Only when manhood is dead - and it will perish when ravaged femininity no longer sustains it - only then will we know what it is to be free.

Seduction is often difficult to distinguish from rape. In seduction, the rapist often bothers to buy a bottle of wine.

You think intercourse is a private act; it's not, it's a social act.

Childbearing is glorified in part because women die from it.

For men I suspect that this transformation begins in the place they most dread -- that is, in a limp penis. I think that men will have to give up their precious erections and begin to make love as women do together.

Intercourse is the pure, sterile, formal expression of men's contempt for women.

Oh, yeah. But the cult of Dworkin isn't anti-sex, or anti-male, or anti-heterosexual sex. Really! And how dare you even suggest such a ludicrous notion! :eyes:

[ConsAreLiars]

111. A member of my family fought and won a prolonged battle with Dworkin over the inclusion of TG rights

in a very successful and groundbreaking LGBTQ (the Q for questioning) mass demonstration. It was groundbreaking as being the first in that major city, and further in bringing together the often segregated white and minority LGBTQ subcultures. As a result, my view of Dworkin is that she is a seriously deformed and hate-filled being. Smart, maybe, but seriously "fucked up" (phrase chosen deliberately) due to some unfortunate developmental misfortune. Too bad, but that doesn't excuse hate-mongering.

[Riktor]

120. Just look at her background

The woman was in an abusive marriage and worked as a prostitute for a number of years. If that won't sully your opinion of men, then nothing will. However, being abused doesn't qualify one to become a social worker. She spouted off neo-Freudian nonsense for years, none of it even remotely objective or scientific. However, because she was loud, angry, and outrageous, she's ten times more popular than academic feminists who first bothered to research their problem before opening their mouth.

[NaturalHigh]

124. "She is a seriously deformed and hate-filled being"...

That's as good a description of Miss Dworkin as I've ever read. Many aren't so charitable. I actually feel pity for anyone who spent her entire life so consumed by irrational anger and hatred.

[NaturalHigh]

125. For anyone who wants to read...

some really hate-filled Dworkinism, this site is available.
Dworkin Site

Of course, no matter how much of it you read, you'll be accused of only reading about her on Wikepedia. :eyes:

[booley]

135. Ironic that Dworkin should be mentioned here

..in a thread about homophobia

Becuase while her ideas failed to take root in the US, they did influence Canada.

Which then used the policies she inspired to attack gay book stores and confiscate thier merchandise.

And yes I do know that Dworkin said she opposed "obscenity laws". But she also wanted laws allowing for civil right damages against porn producers for women who said they were harmed by it (which opens a whole can of worms) And it's this that forms a large basis of the censureship in Canada. So even though she said she opposed the Butler decision, it's reasoning was influenced by Dworkin and was in line with positions she had taken earlier.

Whether she meant this to happen or not, Dworkin's work has actually helped homophobia.

[NaturalHigh]

155. The laws that Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon tried to get passed...

were bizarre to say the least. Some city (Indianapolis?) actually passed a version of it before a court laughed at it and threw it out.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

136. Wasn't Dworkin herself a homophobe?

She claimed that porn was inherently misogynistic, and when asked the argument destroying rebuttal about gay porn, she simply dismissed it by saying it's sexist too because homosexuals are just trying to act like women.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

137. Did She Really Say That?

That is so, well, fucked up...

[bemildred]

141. She tends to draw her conclusions far beyond what her evidence supports.

Not a unique fault by any means.

Your following comment, I agree with, with the understanding that fooling around with the fabric of society to make it better probably ought not be done in a whimsical or selfish mood.

[LeftHander]

144. Anyone who reads more into sex being more than a love and "friction" exersice...

Is a complete jackass.

Love expression...and recreational friction for mutual pleasure...inherently human.

It does not matter if it is man and woman, man and man , woman and woman or all combined...love and friction apply. Deeply personal, very private.

So anyone who dictates "how or who" when it comes to sex is a total fool and simply trying manipulate people based on guilt.

We are really good at that. Christians in particular more so. They LOVE guilt, and use every passage they can find in the bible to maintain obedience and income.

So remember that the next time you are bouncing on a hard one....or slamming the blocks to your beloved...finishing in a tearful, toe curling orgasm...it's just sex.