Here is how I feel about homosexuals as a straight man:
- When I see two men kiss I feel uncomfortable.
- When I see two women kiss I am turned on. Do not ask me why.
- I believe that men having sex with men is a sin. The same for women with women. But then so are most sex acts, not just those. That comes from my badly practised Catholic religion.
- That same religion – and my own experience – teaches me that homosexuals are no worse or better than I am. Men are naturally sinful. I have sins enough of my own. It is part of the fallen nature of man.
- I do not believe in same-sex marriage.
- If my son married a man I would be saddened, but I would not disown him.
From this some say that I hate gays.
That goes too far. It seems to come from the idea that if I do not like something you do, then I must hate you.
But that is not necessarily true. Here is an example of what I mean:
There are men in my family who seem to be completely incapable of sticking to one woman. I know some of their children, so I know to my bone that what they are doing is wrong.
Do I agree with what they are doing? No way.
Does their behaviour sadden me? Of course.
Do I hate them? No, of course not.
Do I look down on them? When I was younger I did, on that part of them, but not any more. Now that I am older the same thoughts have gone through my head too. Only the grace of God has kept me from doing the same. I know that, so I know I am no better than they are.
There is a difference between thinking something is wrong and hating or looking down on those who do it.
I know full well that American society is run by straight white men, many of whom look down on anyone who is different from them. And that sort of thinking – gays are different, therefore they must be messed up – is something I cannot believe in for one second. They are no worse or better than anyone else. Anyone who has read enough of this blog knows just where I am coming from on that one, since I have written at length about race.
I know that Catholic ideas of sex go flat against human nature. Certainly my own. Does that mean it is wrong? Not necessarily. In my own case it has kept me from making some huge mistakes in my life, even apart from whatever divine authority I believe it has.
Am I applying my religion to people who do not believe in it? Yes. But that is unavoidable. I have to function from one set of moral beliefs or another and apply them to the world.
– Abagond, 2008.
Update (2018): I wrote an update to this post: Am I still homophobic?
See also:
- Abagond, You Will Never Learn – from Renee of Womanist Musings
- Catholicism
Back peddle, back peddle…open mouth insert foot. Trying to cover your reasoning with it’s a sin is pretty tired and old. Your original commentary speaks for itself.
LikeLike
hey abagond,
i’m an avid reader–really like what you have to say. My only qualm with this post is that you seem to be saying–“My religion is flawed, and I understand that, but at the same time I’ll use it as a crutch because I don’t have any other reason to feel this way”. You said:
BRAVO- But have you stopped to considered that although the Bible may have been– in part– divinely inspired originally, subsequent revisions, translations, interpretations, additions, and omissions have tailored it to be yet another tool of white patriarchy? The Bible did not CREATE prejudice against homosexuals just as slavery did not CREATE racism against blacks. It existed in the hearts and minds of heterosexual men well before pen was put to paper.
Also, read this: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/130/story_13022.html
LikeLike
Bible did not CREATE prejudice against homosexuals just as slavery did not CREATE racism against blacks. It existed in the hearts and minds of heterosexual men well before pen was put to paper.
A bit OT but where is the evidence for color based racism prior to the advent of the Atlantic slave trade?
LikeLike
Abagond, you need to look what God says about fornication, homosexuality, murder,liars, thieves, stealing, all of them are wrong, but he never hated the people, but he hated the sin, people did. Catholism is not interested in reading what God says about things. They make up their own rules.
LikeLike
Well, at least you’re honest.
The fact that two women kissing turns you on is conditioning. You’ve been taught/told that two women kissing is sexy, so it is.
I think you can be against gay marriage and not be homophobic. To me homophobia means an unnatural fear of lesbians/homosexuals. Like if you sit you next to a gay man, you’ll catch “gay” or something equally stupid.
I personally don’t care what consenting adults do behind closed doors, who they choose to partner with or marry. Forget about same sex couples kissing, I don’t even like to see straight people slob each other down.
LikeLike
khalilah:
I did not mean to make my religion seem like a flawed crutch. If it came off that way, that is my mistake. My guarded way of writing about it comes from knowing that not everyone believes in it and some might think I am “imposing” it on others.
Thanks for the link.
LikeLike
Felicity: Well, clearly, I do not have your take on Catholicism. It is the sort of thing I hear from Protestants.
But your point about God and sin and sinners is a good one: Jesus spoke to hookers and taxmen as much as to the “good” people. God does not like everything we do, but he still loves us.
LikeLike
Renee: to take some off-hand comments I made about homosexuality under a post about racism as my true and full position and to regard this as backpedalling is perverse. What I say here may be tired, it may be wrong-headed, it may be weak, but it is much fuller expression of what I think.
LikeLike
The Bible as a tool of the white patriarchy:
I believe the Bible is the Word of God. It tells us what God wants us to know to get to heaven. But that does not mean that people have not misused it down through the ages and read it to suit their sins. It was used to excuse keeping blacks in chains, but it was also used to break those chains.
LikeLike
I don’t like to see two women kissing nor two heterosexual people out in the street kissing. I think my religious upbringing made me a bit of a prude because I don’t believe that anyone should publicize what they do in the bedroom to the public. What you like is your own business. I have a lot of gay male friends but to tell you the truth, we deal with each other as people. We don’t discuss our personal lives. I have met their friends and they have met my husband. The only time we tread into the personal is when one of us is being hurt by a lover, husband, etc.
LikeLike
As a gay man, I don’t feel offended by this post at all. I understand close to all of what you have written, and it’s not something that can be easily changed (your opinion, that is).
As far as religion goes, it’s waste of time to me. Life is too short to worry about “sinning” or living up to a set of guidelines. (It’s a pretty big joke to me that people can ‘sin’ throughout the week, and be forgiven by the weekend!) Doing your best to be a good person, while staying within the legal demarcations of the law is quite enough for me.
Thank you for sharing your point of view!
LikeLike
As one raised in a radical Protestant tradition, I take a dim view of Priests and clerics who set themselves up as the arbiters of what is or isn’t “God’s will.”
However, this isn’t a criticism that can be limited to Catholicism or any other Christian denomination. Various Protestant sects have a long history of denouncing such behavior when cloaked in “Papal authority” only to then indulge in it themselves.
One of the most jaw dropping examples of this I can recall is when some jumped-up right wing preacher in the Southern Baptist Convention denounced Pope John Paul II for not excomunicating liberal Catholics.
LikeLike
That is something of my view of it: they did not like the pope and his powers but then took on many of the same powers for themselves.
LikeLike
Harold: thank you for your feedback as someone that I might be homophobic about.
LikeLike
Heterosexual PDA: Yes, that can get out of hand too. Good point.
LikeLike
@abagond… I simply took you are your word. If you don’t want to be challenged on your positions you shouldn’t blog. The point of fact is that from almost every perspective you do not acknowledge isms or privilege except when it advantages you.
LikeLike
I’m sure that white people used the similar reasoning to ban interracial marriage.
LikeLike
W.B. Reeves: My evidence is that the transatlantic slave trade occurred at all. One would have to consider an entire race of people completely subhuman in order to come to the conclusion that they must be stolen from their homes and enslaved.
LikeLike
W.B. Reeves: My evidence is that the transatlantic slave trade occurred at all. One would have to consider an entire race of people completely subhuman in order to come to the conclusion that they must be stolen from their homes and enslaved.
I can see why you would reach that conclusion. However, slavery has existed in one form or another in most cultures since the beginning of recorded history and contrary to what one might expect, it wasn’t justified on the basis of slaves being “completely subhuman”. In the classical world, for example, slaves could be artisans, teachers, scribes, engineers, managers, etc. In the Ottoman Empire slaves actually served as soldiers in the elite corps of the Sultan as well as constituting much of the court and administrative officialdom of the Imperial government. These are not positions given to the “completely subhuman.” It is also the case in some instances that slaves had certain legal rights which their masters were obliged to respect.
Moreover, there are no records extant indicating the existence of anything like the modern concept of color based racism in Europe or the Mediteranean prior to the advent of the Atlantic slave trade.
It’s sometimes difficult to accept the extreme differences between the values of historic cultures and the views that we hold today. The idea that the individual human being is endowed with rights based on the fact of their humanity, separate from family, culture, social status or caste, is a recent developement in human history. Even today it isn’t universally held. For most of human history, the individual was defined entirely according to their group identity and social status within a socio-cultural hierarchy. People in such societies had no need to develope a theory of race that defined slaves as subhuman for the simple reason that they did not share our definition of what it means to be human.
But don’t take my word for it. Check out the history for yourself.
LikeLike
Religion, not race, was the excuse first used in Virginia to make black Africans into slaves. Race only came later. The racism we know grew out of the slave trade, not the other way round.
LikeLike
Yes, you are homophobic. Or at least wrong.
You support denying gay people equal protection under law (marriage equality) for no good reason. Every religious person brings their religious beliefs into the political sphere, but you can’t put those beliefs into law unless you can translate them into secular values. MLK, for instance, took Christ’s message of love from his Baptist background and translated it into universal concepts of brotherhood and equality.
The anti-gay politicians have no such universal concepts to rally behind, because there are no good secular reasons to oppose gay marriage. Their arguments are a combination of “It’s gross”, “(My interpretation of) the Bible says it’s wrong” and fearmongering.
I’ve spent hours clicking around on your blog, and you’ve helped me immensely as a white guy to understand white privilege, the black middle class, and American race relations. Thank you for writing! It’s just weird and jarring to see that you oppose equal rights for gay people.
LikeLike
Dylan, gays already have the same rights as anyone. To marry one person of the opposite sex. We don’t allow polygamy so that bisexuals can marry both a man and a woman, yet I don’t see anyone rallying on their behalf.
And I’m getting sick to death of people comparing race to homosexuality. Race is defined by what you LOOK LIKE. Homosexuality is defined by your BEHAVIOR. It is not analogous. No at all. There are gays who do not live a gay lifestyle. Maybe they are Catholic priests and have taken vows of chastity. They may be born gay if you will, but they are not practicing homosexuality. Do you see the difference?
Furthermore, there’s no constitutional guarantee that anyone can get married. It says that nowhere in the constitution.
The best argument pro gay marriage people can come up with is, “it isn’t effecting your life!”. Well neither is polygamy or incestuous marriage, but I don’t support that either. You could give gays civil unions that had the same exact benefits as marriage, but they will not be satisfied. They want the word marriage because they want to force society to view homosexuality as being equally as ideal as heterosexuality. Well that’s no my belief, given that men were given a penis and women given a vagina for a reason.
And btw, I didn’t invoke religion anywhere in my reply.
LikeLike
Dylan said:
“I’ve spent hours clicking around on your blog, and you’ve helped me immensely as a white guy to understand white privilege, the black middle class, and American race relations. Thank you for writing!”
Wow, I am glad you liked it. And I am even more glad that you could read it with an open enough mind – not all whites can.
“It’s just weird and jarring to see that you oppose equal rights for gay people.”
Some points:
1. Like Tulio, I too am sick of people comparing gays to blacks. It is a comparison that is taken too far to false conclusions.
2. Your point about secular vs religious values is interesting.
3. By nature most straight men are probably polygamous. So where is their right to polygamous marriage? Muslim men are allowed up to four wives. Where is their freedom of religion? Like Tulio said, what is the secular argument against polygamous marriage?
4. What is the secular argument against cannibalism? If my mother dies and I serve her up for dinner, who am I hurting? My neighbours would think I am sick in the head, but they are just religious bigots who do not think for themselves. They are cannibalophobes.
5. When I vote, I am going to vote according to my ideas of right and wrong. That is partly informed by religion, like it or not. Am I imposing my religious values on others? Hardly. It is a democracy, not a monarchy. If most voters are Christian “homophobes” who vote against same-sex marriage, then that is not the fault of religion but of democracy. As was done with abortion, gay activists undermine the popular will by going through the courts.
LikeLike
1. I don’t think I explicitly compared the struggles of gays to black Americans. There are commonalities, but comparisons can be dangerous and misleading.
2. http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2008/01/king-and-huck.html is a really good post arguing this.
3. I honestly don’t know. Plural marriage would be a lot more complicated legally, but it’s a decent point I need to think about.
4. I have no moral problem with cannibalism. If you could minimize the health hazard, and the person being eaten consents while they are alive, I think it should be legal. It’s none of my business how someone else mourns if they aren’t hurting anyone.
5. Majority rule is not absolute. In many cases, the will of the majority has been overturned to protect the rights of minorities.
Loving v. Virginia, for instance, (which found anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional) overturned popular will, and in the bargain recognized marriage as a fundamental right.
LikeLike
Okay. I should start by stating I’m a gay, non practicing Jewish white woman so here’s where this perspective comes from.
I’m not sure whether I’m offended by this. Catholicism, or at least Catholicism sincerely adhered to (most of the Catholics I’m close to are young and lapsed) is something of a mystery to me and Judaism, though it officially condemns homosexuality, has long been lax on the subject so a true, religious perspective on this isn’t really something I can relate to.
Your honesty and the way you phrase this entry makes it impossible to be offended, exactly–in answer to your (rhetorical) question, I don’t believe you hate gays but I do think you are homophobic. That’s not an insult–most of us are, including gay people.
The thing is, I’ve never been able to find a real, secular argument against homosexuality that in my mind, holds up. I do not see how two people of the same sex in a committed, monogamous relationship is somehow sinful, while a man and a woman in an almost identical relationship is normal and natural. I don’t see the connection to adultery, which hurts everyone involved and is in itself a betrayal of love and trust. If I put more trust in Scripture (and sometimes I wish I did), I might be able to see actions in terms of sinful/not sinful but I don’t think that way. I don’t see how, in comparison to all the true mistakes I’ve made in my life, the hurt I’ve caused to others intentionally and unintentionally (as we all have), some religious people consider my greatest fault to be the fact that I love women. It makes no sense to me.
Tullio: I don’t know a single bisexual who wants to marry more than one person. If they’re out there, please tell them to call and correct me but in my experience bisexuals define themselves as having the potential to end up with someone of either sex, not needing to be with both at the same time.
As for polygamy, maybe I’m wrong here but I don’t know of any person of any orientation who needs to be in a polygamous marriage, who feels separated from people in monogamous partnerships, who could NEVER be happy in a marriage with one person, who hears their friends talking about boyfriends or girlfriends and feels alienated and wonders if they’re truly perverse–in short, who is the sexual Other. Maybe I’m wrong but I see polygamy as something elective and perhaps I’m looking from a different perspective here but I see homosexuality as an identity, not an elective sexual practice. A man who would prefer three wives can at least still desire and love one wife–a gay man cannot.
LikeLike
I appreciate your honesty and I find the comparison of the marriage equality to the civil rights struggle lazy (except for Loving v Virginia). I am in favor of equal rights and marriage equality, but get annoyed when white gays who know almost nothing about black history make this analogy. I also get pissed at black folks who want to use their religion to control the social behavior of others (i.e. pro life, anti-gay marriage). Black folks are not doing to well in the marriage area and we have no right to tell another community what they should or shouldn’t do.
LikeLike
I think you’re homophobic in the same way that most white people are racist: not out of malice, but out of ignorance. You don’t really have to think the topic through, so why take the effort to do so, especially when it would disturb you? For the record, I consider myself to be homophobic, too, but I think I’ve thought this issue through a bit more than you have, maybe.
Personally, I can’t understand how anyone who believes in a loving god would believe that god would find it sinful that two human beings love each other. To me, that’s just a logical short-circuit of immense proportions. Furthermore, the Bible is so vague and contradictory on this point that I can’t figure out how Christians can justify “homosexuality is a sin” to themselves.
The main injunction against homosexuality is, of course, in Leviticus – a chapter of the Bible which also prohibits men from touching menstruating women and enjoins parents to kill disobedient children. In fact, Christians have no problem ignoring Leviticus almost completely EXCEPT for the part where it says “men shall not lie down with men”.
(And then they justify that on a “literal” interpretation of the Bible, but hell, doesn’t that mean blow jobs are OK if at least one partner is standing? And what about girl-on-girl action? Leviticus has nothing to say about that. But I digress…)
Jesus said exactly nothing about homosexuality and although Saint Paul apparently thought it was icky, he also didn’t consider things like slavery to be a sin, so again, why the strict adherence to one thing that Paul says while conveniently ignoring another?
That’s why this “Hey, it’s just my religion” approach of yours is a homophobic dodge to me, Abagond. There is no more “logical” reason to believe that the God is foursquare against homosexuality, in the Bible, than there is to believe that he finds menstrual blood polluting. You can perfectly well be a Christian and even a Catholic and not buy into this sort of happy crappy.
In exactly the same way that you are a Catholic now and conveniently ignore the Church’s very grim history when it comes to slavery and genocide.
Brazil is full of gay-supporting Catholics.
LikeLike
Abagond,
I agree with Thad. I don’t think you hate gay people and I don’t think you’d ever do any harm to them. You also say you’d accept one of them if he’s a family member. But they sill make you uncomfortable and you still don’t believe they should have the same rights as heterosexuals, so yes, that is homophobic. Like with any other prejudice and discrimination, it’s easier to forget about it if it doesn’t affect you or your group.
But I think you need to understand all people have prejudices. People should unlearn them, but it’s really difficult (impossible?) to find a person without prejudice. So you being a non-violent (I assume) homophobe is not what it bothers me. Still, it might serve as an example of how it’s easy to have prejudice when you’re not affected by them. And yes, I know being gay is not the same as being black, but the mechanism behind othering and oppression is similar in all the oppressions. I know you believe it’s impossible to understand a group you don’t belong to, but when you think how you feel about gay people can make you understand how whites think about non-whites better than simply listening their garbage and harmful messages.
LikeLike
Thank you, Thaddeus. I thought of bringing up how fuzzy the Bible is on homosexuality, it’s one line and relates very specifically to one particular male on male sex act. Some argue it’s a mistranslation referring to a passive role during sex or pedophilia, some say it condemns that particular position/act but not love between men in general and some (though I’ve really only seen this within the Jewish community), take the absence of the mention of lesbianism as a loophole for women, as I see you said, Thaddeus.
I agree with both Thad and Mira on your form of homophobia–as for what you say in your entry about being turned on by women and not knowing why, I generally think straight men are turned on by lesbians because they don’t view it as a serious relationship. It’s essential (not to be vulgar) the equivalent of watching a woman masturbate, doubled. There’s no man, so clearly a man is needed. A woman is being sexual but it’s incomplete. Cue self insertion. Heterosexual relationships are a closed book, the man is there, you can’t get involved. Whereas lesbians–well, all they need is a *real man* and they’ll be sorted. Not to say this is necessarily you or you consciously, just what I’ve observed in general.
LikeLike
Another issue with comparing civil rights to gay rights (besides the obvious lopsidedness of the claim) is how the comparison alienates gays of color. Only white people can compare their struggle to race–and not all gays are white.
LikeLike
“The anti-gay politicians have no such universal concepts to rally behind, because there are no good secular reasons to oppose gay marriage. Their arguments are a combination of “It’s gross”, “(My interpretation of) the Bible says it’s wrong” and fearmongering. ”
How about public health? There’s a reason why HIV prevalence is high among male homosexual populations all over the world.
LikeLike
“How about public health? There’s a reason why HIV prevalence is high among male homosexual populations all over the world.”
You’re absolutely right about that. But HIV is hardly limited to homosexuals and whether homosexuals are allowed to marry will change very little about the spread of HIV. Unless, of course, you’re referring to the enforcement of sodomy laws, which has been ineffective since the laws needed to be created.
Also, lesbians are at a lower risk for HIV than heterosexuals, if I’m not wrong.
LikeLike
M,
There’s no man, so clearly a man is needed. A woman is being sexual but it’s incomplete. Cue self insertion.
This makes sense. Still, why doesn’t it work in the opposite direction? I don’t know many women who are turned on by gays. Most of the women are not turned on by watching two men kissing, let alone having sex. In fact, more (straight) women prefer lesbian porn * than the gay, or even straight porn.
*There’s a reason for it. It’s not about imagining you can join the two girls, but being one of the girls- about the fantasy of being touched on the all right places because the person doing it- for a change- knows exactly what needs to be done in order to satisfy you. Which makes you think about the general quality of straight sex and the general male ability to satisfy a female partner.
LikeLike
Mira–
I do know several women who get excited over gay male subtext on TV and in movies (Sherlock Holmes) but I don’t think these women really get off on gay male sex in quite the same way. I’m not sure it’s even comparable.
I think it’s related to the concept of “how do lesbians do it”. When a straight man asks a gay woman or lesbian couple how lesbians do it, he’s not genuinely curious. He can google that and he knows it. What he means is to demean the relationship, let them know he’s needed. Maybe it’s not that a relationship is seen as incomplete without two opposite sex partners, it’s seen as incomplete without a man. People don’t view straight single men as needing women but single women are always portrayed as needing men. Maybe it’s on some level simple sexism or sexual narcissism.
Also, women are seen as passive sexual agents generally and more romantic than sexual. So people tend to view lesbian relationships (particularly femme-femme) as passive, full of gazing eyes and sexually tepid. Only a man can inject “real sex”. And if one of the partners is more masculine, she’s a cheap imitation of a man.
As I see it, to most homophobes, gay men are reviled and gay women are simply dismissed.
LikeLike
FG, I’ll presume that you’re being serious and that it’s out of ignorance and not malice, so I’ll give you a seriousd answer.
HIV is transmitted by shared bodily fluids. Sex shares bodily fluids. Period. Nothing gay about it.
Some forms of sex are more risky. Anal sex is a very high risk. But – NEWSFLASH! – not all gays are into anal and in many places around the world (like in my home country of Brazil), straights are vERY into anal.
To thus claim that gays have some sort of privileged connection to HIV transmission is basically a serious admission on your part of EXTREME sexual naiveté. Maybe YOU only have vaginal sex in the missionary position – presuming you have sex at all – but I assure you that a huge portion of the world’s heterosexual population goes way beyond that.
So let’s tick off the sexual ignorance your belief that gay = HIV displays, shall we?
1) It means you don’t understand that the virus is transmitted through bodily fluids, which are shared any number of ways and are also shared in unprotected vaginal sex.
2) It means you don’t understand that probably 1 billion or more heterosexual people on this planet routinely practice anal sex.
3) It means that you think the only – or even principal – kind of gay sex is anal sex.
That’s a pretty sad admission on your part, FG.
Your zipper’s open, man.
LikeLike
To the straight women who turn gay men into desexualized pets (the gay best friend) and fear or look down upon lesbians, it’s a similar dynamic differently expressed. Almost without exception, straight people find homosexuality within their own sex most threatening. I’ve never quite figured out why this is.
LikeLike
^Mira, I think it has something to do with what another commenter mentioned above: conditioning. Women have always been the “little playthings,” of society, so watching them be sexual with each other is arousing as an extension of that. We’re used to seeing women in sexual/titillating scenarios: models, beauty pageqants, even clothing perpetuate this idea of women as sexual objects. If men had been objectified for as long the reactions would be the same, I believe.
LikeLike
I don’t know many women who are turned on by gays.
Speak for yourself. I know PLENTY.
LikeLike
^I do too. I am turned on — if the men are both goodlooking. 😉
LikeLike
@Thad
Speak for yourself. I know PLENTY.
Really? Actually, I wasn’t talking about myself (if you know what I mean… ), but I don’t know many women turned on by gays or gay porn. Then again, my culture is very homophobic and the only acceptable homosexuality is lesbians in porn marketed to straight men.
@M
Maybe it’s not that a relationship is seen as incomplete without two opposite sex partners, it’s seen as incomplete without a man.
That is because many people (men and women) believe sex is not real sex unless there’s penetration.
As for women hating lesbians / linking gays, I hate the “gay best friend/puppet” narrative. I find it discussing. I do have gay friends and not lesbian, but I don’t know any lesbians. Then again, I don’t see lesbians as “threatening” in any way.
(But I’m one of those people who believe humans are generally bisexual- the only difference is the percentage of one’s bisexuality).
LikeLike
“2) It means you don’t understand that probably 1 billion or more heterosexual people on this planet routinely practice anal sex.”
Icky.
LikeLike
Well Canada legalized gay marriage and it hasn’t fallen into the sea, society hasn’t gone to h#ll in a hand basket. It is hardly remarked on in the press anymore. You Americans seem to be on the one hand puritanical, and on the other, sex obsessed. That’s one of the things I like about you, never a dull moment!
LikeLike
Well, whether you find it icky or not, FG, doesn’t change the fact they are, in fact, doing it.
LikeLike
Natasha, I agree with you about the women as playthings theory. Interesting, though, I know many women who get turned on by gay men but they view these relationships as closed–while women can certainly be homophobic and make pets of gays, they don’t tend to try to self-insert. I feel I should state, I don’t think there’s any personal failing in a man being turned on by lesbians or a woman by gay men. Sexual desire is involuntary. I find it disturbing, however, when men seem to think the women in question are putting on some kind of show specifically for them. Ick.
Another way to look at this–
Perhaps lesbianism through male gaze allows women to be sexual while retaining “purity”? These women are not ruined by the presence of a man. Also, the disproportionate number of blondes in lesbian porn videos–could this intersect with race? The pure white woman is allowed to remain so even while in a sexual position if she’s sleeping with another pure white woman? Not that I’m exactly an expert but I don’t think there are many black women in lesbian porn videos.
LikeLike
Mira–
In my experience from during my closeted days, straight women view themselves as in a safe space when they congregate together. They view lesbians as a violation of this safety–“but it’s a sleepover! What if she DOES something?”.
They also view lesbians as less than fully female–more akin to men and certainly not part of their club.
I’m ashamed to say my most dimwitted homophobic remarks have probably been said in these “women’s” spaces.
And then again, some straight women don’t appear threatened at all.
LikeLike
Not that I’m exactly an expert but I don’t think there are many black women in lesbian porn videos.
There are black women in lesbian porn, but it’s often really racist. Interracial porn (and porn with non-white people in general) is always racist, but this is really sick. It’s either given in a form of “ghetto bit#es teach a naive white girl how to have some heavy fun” or black lesbians doing disrespectful things. I don’t want to go into details, just trust me- really disrespectful (white women do disrespectful things in porn, of course, but never when there are black women there).
LikeLike
Mira–
Oh. Ew. I had no idea. That’s really sick.
LikeLike
M,
“Perhaps lesbianism through male gaze allows women to be sexual while retaining “purity”? These women are not ruined by the presence of a man.”
That also seems to be a part of it. A guy I know likes lesbian porn more than straight porn because he doesn’t like to see the woman being “defiled” by a man.
“Also, the disproportionate number of blondes in lesbian porn videos–could this intersect with race? The pure white woman is allowed to remain so even while in a sexual position if she’s sleeping with another pure white woman? Not that I’m exactly an expert but I don’t think there are many black women in lesbian porn videos.”
I think it’s just because white men are more sexually attracted to blondes (and then other white women, next).
“In my experience from during my closeted days, straight women view themselves as in a safe space when they congregate together. They view lesbians as a violation of this safety–”but it’s a sleepover! What if she DOES something?”.
They also view lesbians as less than fully female–more akin to men and certainly not part of their club.”
I’m a lesbian fan. I think they are generally more awesome than other women, probably because they tend to be more aware and conscious. But admittedly, I know and associate with very few non-white lesbians.
LikeLike
They also view lesbians as less than fully female–more akin to men and certainly not part of their club.
This is also cultural. It’s about the accessible form of female friendship, and what sort of subjects can be discussed in female company. Women talk about politics, economy, history and astronomy- but these subjects are not seen as acceptable for female company small talk. The usual and acceptable topics are men, shopping, children, and, on a more serious level, art, feminism (gender equality) and literature. But even these can’t always pass for a female chit chat.
I remember, in high school, my best friend and I were seen as a lesbian couple simply because we were tomboys and our discussions were never about makeup and girl small talk. Also, we were not into gossip and valued our friendship too much- and true, strong female friendship is seen as “strange” and unacceptable. Acceptable form of female friendship is Sex and the city kind. Anything truly deeper than that is seen “suspicious”.
I must admit it would, probably, be a bit uncomfortable to be friends with a lesbian who is attracted to me. But not lesbians in general. Same goes with male friends. If he’s not attracted to me, we can be friends. Like I said, I don’t know any lesbians but I don’t think I would see them as a threat or inferior, or whatever.
LikeLike
Natasha–
Agreed. I think I may have been a bit on the wrong track with the blonde assumption.
I wasn’t referring to all straight women–generally speaking, I see that kind of behavior most in young, straight, white women who can get quite clubby. I think older women are generally less threatened by gay women, as well. That isn’t to say that they’re not homophobic–they certainly can be–but the threat isn’t there. Perhaps older women don’t have quite as high an estimation of their own sexuality?
LikeLike
Oddly enough, woman on woman porn has never turned me on. But then again, most porn really doesn’t do much for me. It’s far too processed.
LikeLike
But then again, most porn really doesn’t do much for me. It’s far too processed.
Not so odd. There are many men who think the same. They rather be doing than getting satisfaction via porn.
LikeLike
I have nothing against porn per se, just the industry. Still, the major problem with those movies is that they often look fake, actors can’t act so it spoils everything, imo.
However, I did watch a porn movie with a good main actor- no kidding! The guy’s acting (I mean real acting, outside the sex scenes) was really good. He was better than many mainstream actors, he had good diction, etc.
LikeLike
Mira, amateur films don’t seem as fake.
LikeLike
(Except for that Ray-J/Kim Kardashian crap. A waste of life).
LikeLike
[Nods at Natasha]
To the degree that I watch porn, it’s almost always amateur.
LikeLike
Mira, amateur films don’t seem as fake.
True, these a re better. Still, amateurs often like to imitate porn, so they don’t really have sex, but act too. I mean, is it even possible to have “natural sex” while camera is rolling?
Another problem: is it even possible to have “natural sex” at all? All we know about sex is cultural, and porn, adult magazines, even mainstream movies and the whole culture shape our idea on how sex should look like. Or what real sex actually is.
And back to lesbians, I do believe many people see only penetrative sex as “the real sex”. It’s not about lesbians only. Remember all those “technical virgins”? If you’re not having penetrative (vaginal) sex, you’re not having sex at all. That sort of mentality? And then people get confused about STDs and stuff among teenagers.
LikeLike
When I say “natural sex”, I mean “two people who are mainly trying to get off on one another and not posing for the camera”.
LikeLike
lol, true! Posing for the camera definitely ruins my suspension of disbelief.
LikeLike
Fair play.
One telltale question, though: If your son, acting on your conditioning of ‘discomfort’ around gayness (guys kissing, for example), stayed in the closet, married, had his own kids, then came out of the closet because he couldn’t stand the wrenching identity crisis, how would you feel? How about if your daughter-presuming you have one- did viceversa?
Purely hypothetical, I know, but worth thinking about.
LikeLike
abagond,
i generally really appreciate your blog, but i was definitely put off by this post. i agree with Thad’s first comment (and Mira’s directly following it) from way back in 2008, and was hoping that you would respond to some of their points (esp. regarding the contradictions of leviticus). also frankly, as a queer person reading this i was insulted by your comparison of queer sex acts to cheating. seriously? queer isn’t just a set of behaviors, its an identity. and to reduce that marginalized identity to a set of behaviors which is to you, comparable to the completely VOLUNTARY (and not to mention just plain RUDE) act of cheating on a partner IS screwed up.
not to mention that for the most part, this post sidesteps discussing homophobia/heterosexism as a SYSTEM of privilege and oppression just like any other, a system which privileges you… and a system which intersects with and helps maintain every other oppression. i’m disappointed…
LikeLike
I’m really saddened to come across this post, I’d expected that you’d support gay rights. Do you still feel this way?
Why do you support government discrimination? Marriage inequality isn’t just a theoretical argument, it impacts on gay couples in terms of hospital visitation rights, medical decision-making, inheritance tax, access to family insurance policies, child custody, immigration rights if one partner is not American, and so on.
Even if you are convinced that gay sex is a sin (many Christians would disagree!), it doesn’t follow that you should support government discrimination against gay people. As far as I’m aware, Catholicism doesn’t permit remarriage after divorce. Do you therefore think that remarriage after divorce should be illegal in the US? Including for non-Catholics?
LikeLike
@Abagond
Good Post. For once, we pretty much agree.
LikeLike
When I see two women kiss I am turned on. Do not ask me why
Anyone care to answer this one?
LikeLike
Demerera,
I have no idea why, but you can hardly control what makes you turned on. For example, I am a straight girl, but I am tuned on by two men kissing.
But I’m ok with all sexual orientations, as long as sex happens between two consenting adults.
LikeLike
Most straight men I know are turned on by “lesbians” (= their idea of a lesbian, not true gay women). I guess it has something to do with being in the middle of it and being the only guy they care about. Also, the logistics: no need to look at another guy’s penis while watching porn.
As a straight girl who likes some men on men action, I can’t really explain it. The mere thought of two men kissing is amazing to me, provided that the men involved are hot. Or bisexual. I am not turned on by the thought of Elton John and his partner kissing. I am not even turned on by gay porn. But I like movie kisses between male actors and some male touching and stuff. I don’t imagine myself in the middle and I can’t explain why I like it, except- maybe- with the fact I like men. A lot. I like the way they look and I like their hair (on their head) and I like their bodies. So I guess having two men kissing and stuff is better than having just one? This is the only thing I can think of.
LikeLike
Also, the “forbidden fruit” factor.
LikeLike
@Mira
have no idea why, but you can hardly control what makes you turned on. For example, I am a straight girl, but I am tuned on by two men kissing.
I agree that you cant control what turns people on for sure and of course I can also appreciate that what works for one, doesnt work for another. Seeing two men kissing does nothing for me though have to say I dont recall seeing it that often.
@Bulanik
A lot of heterosexual men like to see women kissing and the ones who have cared to explain why all seem to say that they like it because they imagine they are in the middle of the kiss, and everything else.
Hmmm, interesting perspective. Always makes me laugh to think of this though as a lot of men cant manage one woman let alone two lol.
I know when I was doing a course a few years back there was this obnoxious guy there who fancied one of the girls. After his failed attempts to chat her up, her and another student said they were “off to bed”. He immediately and very spitefully started talking about them being ‘rug munchers’ – I couldnt believe how a man could get that bitter that quick. The girls were not a couple but merely coincidentally decided to retire at the same time. He acted disgusted but I suspected deep down that jealousy and a rock hard p*nis with no outlet were talking….
LikeLike
Seeing two men kissing does nothing for me though have to say I dont recall seeing it that often.
It’s because it is not something straight males want to see. And as we all know, what straight males want to see IS the most important (/sarcasm).
LikeLike
Abagond, you once said in a very powerful post about internalized racism, “God does not make mistakes.” Does that post only apply to straight people?
LikeLike
I like your take on race issues so I’m disappointed that you do not support equality consistently. Maybe it’s because we subscribe to different political philosophies. p.s. if I may ask, would you support lgbt causes other than marriage equality (hate crime legislation, anti-discrimination law in school and workplace etc)?
LikeLike
Hello Abagond,
I enjoy reading your articles about race and race politics, I feel the need to comment on this one.
It is very hard for a black person to step away from his religion unlike for a white person. Christianity is a big part of the black community, and has been the spiritual, emotional and intellectual crutch of black people since slavery.
Many people see this as a good thing but I see it quite differently, it makes us dependent on the Bible for our well-being. When the black man felt he was the lowest denominator of society and unloved – he turned to Jesus who was the only person who seemed to love him unconditionally. Jesus taught him love, respect, and how to see the world in a positive light.
However, the dark side of this is that religion holds you warmly while placing a blindfold on your heart; the deeper the man is within the religion is no longer able to feel or think outside of the bounds of which the religion has placed for him. Not only that, his ability to be satisfied without religion reduces every year he is within the religion.
Christianity has also made it harder for people to see gay people as people, to reject the fear that gay people will make our birth rate obsolete (when it does not) and that gay men are abnormal and will destroy the balance of nature which are irrational fears since homosexuality has been recorded since the beginning of time before it was taboo (puritan era).
As Karl Marx said himself, religion is the sign of an oppressed creature. The desire for spiritual and emotional fulfillment without the uncertainty in a world that has many issues that cause us to feel unhappy.
Also, your comment on how you feel disgusted about gay sex and not lesbian sex is very common and is actually related to patriarchy. The bible is quite similar, it mentions how a man cannot lie with another man but it ignores the fact that women can lie with each other.
Patriarchy makes any man who does not fulfill a man’s role or is not worthy of heterosexual male gaze to be seen as disgusting in society. Like racism, it will take a while for you to unlearn this, but believe me that this is a part of homophobia. I suggest you find male gay people and make conversation with them, open-mindedly learn about the way they live and the prejudices they face. With time society’s conditioning that makes you gay men as “gay sex” will undo and you can see them normally as people. Perhaps your opinion on their marriage will also change?
Many Regards,
Dominique
LikeLike
Apologies for the many mistakes within my post, it’s pretty late over here in England.
I hope you can re-look into the history of African homosexuality with an open mind. I am here to give you information on any doubts or internal fears that you may have about homosexuality.
LikeLike
God has a hoard job i don’t want to do it. Let him do his job.
LikeLike
*hard Job* ^^^^^^ typo.
LikeLike
Yes I am aware of the verse. However, it simply states that a woman’s desire for another woman is “contrary” and “dishonorable” and must be given up. However, he goes further when addressing male homosexuality as “shameless” and so depraved to be “consumed with passion for one another”.
You can see it subtlety in the writing when the bible also address male homosexuality in other verses that the focus has been on male homosexuality as it has been for hundreds of years.
That also gives me the theory that the bible was written by a man (though there’s many other things that point to this).
Generally, what I meant is that the author of the bible (I say author, not god as my position as a non-religious black) has his own verbal description of how he feels about the acts.
Unfortunately, these contrary and dishonorable acts are not unique to human nature, and there’s increasing evidence that shows that we can be attracted to another without societal influence and that our ancestors indulged indiscriminately with each other without any risk to society (this includes the greeks), so it proves that homosexuality as “disgusting” is a very subjective matter is going on emotion and feeling rather than genuine alarm.
LikeLike
my purity test score has gotten worse in general, over the years, that’s for sure
LikeLike
@ Dominique
“Also, your comment on how you feel disgusted about gay sex and not lesbian sex is very common and is actually related to patriarchy.”
I agree with what you wrote except for the above line. Patriarchy is in part male dominance but straight men wanting threesomes would be just as desirable in a matriarchal culture. I think that’s just how straight men are wired and it has little to do with patriarchy.
I don’t think the state should be in the marriage business in the first place. Marriage has religious roots and should remain within that sphere.
I have no problems with gays getting married and liberal churches will marry them.
People should be allowed to do whatever they want provided they don’t interfere with your life, liberty or property. And supporting peoples rights to pursue their happiness, even if you think their peculiarities immoral, is what being equal under the law means.
The problem with the anti gay marriage arguments is that can’t prove how two gay people getting married will in any way cause them harm either personally or within society.
I don’t see what Abagond wrote as being homophobic; just honest.
LikeLike
michael jon barker
Excellent comment. It contained a lot of well-thought points.
“straight men wanting threesomes would be just as desirable in a matriarchal culture. I think that’s just how straight men are wired and it has little to do with patriarchy. “
I agree that patriarchy or matriarchy wouldn’t affect that. A lot of men are wired for promiscuity, threesomes, etc. But I wouldn’t say all or even most. I read a survey that said only 14% of adults have had a threesome and only 21% have even fantasized about it. Most men don’t cheat either.
I don’t think the state should be in the marriage business in the first place. Marriage has religious roots and should remain within that sphere.
I agree. The government should recognize civil unions for all but not marriage for anyone. Marriage belongs to religion not government.
“People should be allowed to do whatever they want provided they don’t interfere with your life, liberty or property. And supporting peoples rights to pursue their happiness, even if you think their peculiarities immoral, is what being equal under the law means.”
I agree. It should be legal for people to engage in any stupid, self destructive behavior they choose as long as it doesn’t harm others or society.
“I have no problems with gays getting married and liberal churches will marry them.”
I have mixed feelings on that. If the church of the flying spaghetti monster or some independent group wants to hold a ceremony then have at it. But I don’t think they should call it marriage. That word is already taken and people shouldn’t redefine it. Also, most religious texts strictly forbid homosexuality. The bible, torah, koran, etc shouldn’t be rewritten to endorse homosexuality. I realize that religions have evolved and changed over hundreds or even thousands of years. But to deliberately change something to the opposite is a whole other thing.
“The problem with the anti gay marriage arguments is that can’t prove how two gay people getting married will in any way cause them harm either personally or within society. “
I agree. I can, however, see how promiscuity harms people and society by contributing to illegitimacy and divorce. I think promiscuity should be discouraged and homosexuals should be held to the same moral standards heterosexuals are. Which, unfortunately, are not as high as they should be.
>>
RE: abagond’s comment about disowning a gay son. If I had a gay son I’d realize he had no more choice being that way than someone with autism or epilepsy. As long as he wasn’t promiscuous and otherwise had his act together I’d deal with it. I’d even hope he’d find a nice roommate to be friends with. But if he was going to gay bars, drug fueled orgies, trolling rest stops, etc I’d disown him. Just because someone is gay doesn’t mean they’re not responsible for their behavior.
LikeLike
That uncomfortable feeling when you wake up in the morning to find that Da Jokah pretty much agrees with your post. lol
I think religions can change and still are. At one time Protestants and Catholics were killing each other and sectarian violence lasted 100’s of years.
Today the same thing is happening within Islam with different sects vying for power.
Churches today that do marry homosexuals are the Episcopalians among others. Basically these churches have rejected fundamentalism and interpret scripture through the lens of humanism. Lifting humanity through religion is a positive thing. Destroying humanity through sectarian violence or unjust religious based laws that justify coercion is a negative thing.
I have a gay son and he is a lot smarter then me. When he was young My wife at the time knew he was gay but I was in denial for awhile. I was worried he would get beat up, catch a disease and as a father I wasn’t sure whether I could relate to him. I found that all my concerns were unfounded and loving your kids transcends them being gay. We were a secular family so their was never any homophobia out right. He will be going to Berkley as a double major in chemical and nuclear engineering. He wants to be a nuclear physicist. I’m still wrapping my mind around that. I never finished high school.
LikeLike
To be honest. I’m not sure why people are so defensive of marriage. The marriage we have today is not even the original marriage; it is heavily modified and butchered. I believe because of this we -can- change marriage, the “sacred” marriage arguement is outdated unless you believe marriage should be reverted to “Man owns woman as property, they don’t have to be in love, wives can be exchanged, refunded and sold.”
In Christian marriage also, you also have to accept that traditional marriage that excluded gay people also demanded that rapists marry their victims.
I don’t like traditional marriage, modern (edited) marriage is much better. I also believe it can be modified again to include gay marriage, there is no excuse.
LikeLike
Dominique,
“To be honest. I’m not sure why people are so defensive of marriage.”
I think you summed up why perfectly in your post….patriarchy.
LikeLike
idk i just remember sometime around 09 i think it was on sirius or just before howard stern left ‘earth’ ie terrestrial radio, gary ‘baba booey’ was busting on howard, he said ‘ no i don’t watch lesbians because i’m not gay’ i can’t find a quote at this time
LikeLike
Sure, we could consider that. The only problem is that over 1100 Federal Statutes state a range of rights and responsibilities that are due married persons or to spouses or to widowed or divorced persons. Each state, territory and the District of Columbia also has hundreds, if not thousands of relevant statutes. Sure we can consider removing the state’s involvement in marriage, but then we would have to revise the tens of thousands of laws and statutes that have anything to do with marriage or married persons or formerly married persons.
For example, if we wanted the state to recognize civil unions, but not marriage, then we may have to revise all the wording in the laws. For example,
marriage – civil union
married couple – civil union partnership
spouse (or husband or wife) – civil union partner
divorce – civil union dissolution
widow – surviving civil union partner with deceased partner
orphan – child with no living parent or civil union partner of either parent
etc.
The state would have to grandfather prior marriages and rename them civil unions and then invalidate all prior marriage licenses ever issued and never again issue a marriage license.
Family relationships would have to be redefined as those who are direct descendants or related via civil union or adoption. (ie, there will be no such thing as related by marriage as legally, that would no longer exist).
The state would have to prohibit any institution that admits the public or receives public funds or enjoys tax deductions from using any wording in their procedures, rules or by-laws that refers to marriage, spouse, divorce, widow, etc. They may use terms related to civil union.
Laws would have to be written to determine how marriages performed outside the United States would be recognized as civil unions in the US.
If marriage becomes an institution related to religion, then it can also become a source of discrimination. For example, whether or not someone is married cannot impact access to housing, education, employment, public services, etc. Equal opportunity laws would have to be written.
If the state only recognized civil unions and not marriages, then we would also have to rewrite the laws regarding becoming a legal parent. Either all persons would have to adopt their own children (regardless of sex or blood relationship) or parental rights would accrue to civil union partners.
There is probably a lot of other stuff that would have to abolished, repealed, revised, replaced, etc. if the state got out of the marriage business.
Beyond this, then religious institutions can perform marriages and govern them however they wish. However, the legal ramification of such a relationship would only be relegated to within the sphere of that religious body.
LikeLike
http://healthyceleb.com/michelle-rodriguez-height-weight-body-statistics/8350
Michelle Rodriguez Height Weight Body Statistics
LikeLike
@jefe gay marriage is about taxes, look it up.
LikeLike
Having gay people have a civil union would not be equality at all. That would mean they are treated differently to straight people.
LikeLike
it’s called ‘married filing jointly’ vs. single 0
LikeLike
^ Not if marriage between a man and a woman had no meaning for legal and tax purpose and the govt completely removed itself from the business of marriage and only approved civil unions for both heterosexual and homosexual legal relationships. That would require that all the existing laws be rewritten to strike marriage, spouse, divorce and widow out of all legal code.
@V8driver, cannot believe that it is ALL about taxes. There are aspects of family reunification, immigration, insurance, etc.
LikeLike
dude at a bottom line it would cost the federal goverment billions to endorse same sex marriage
LikeLike
yep.
So, should they even endorse marriage in the first place if it is costing them tens of billions already?
On the other hand, it probably would save them hundreds of millions also, esp. if we had more wage earning spouses and fewer single parent families.
But, when do they ever do anything that makes sense. How much is the mass black incarceration program costing the govt.?
LikeLike
http://www.irs.gov/uac/Answers-to-Frequently-Asked-Questions-for-Same-Sex-Married-Couples
LikeLike
That is really a one-sided view. It is partially about taxes, but not really all about taxes.
LikeLike
Who cares how much it costs? There’s no excuse for discrimination. It should have never been excluded in the first place.
LikeLike
I reject religion, therefore my moral code is not dictated by what I am told (by humans) is the rule of an invisible, intangible deity for which there is no evidence but anecdote.
Homophobia is not only sheer bigotry, akin to racism, it is utterly irrational.
The “unnatural” claim is purest drivel. Homosexual coupling is seen in many species in addition to homo sapiens. What is “natural behaviour”? Driving around in cars? Flying rockets? Dropping bombs? Using computers?
What is unnatural about homosexual sex? The choice of orifice? The same method of entry that many men eagerly chase in their conquest of women? How much of heterosexual porn is concerned with approaching the lady from behind – yes that behind…
People who engage in sex that does not result in procreation are doing the world a favour.
As for the religious thing. I will never understand why intelligent people entertain awful, cruel and prejudiced attitudes because they are told from childhood that these are the orders of an invisible sky-pixie. We grow out of belief in fairies, Santa and Harvey but not of God. Could that be because he is big business for some very privileged people. Your religion is dictated by geographical accident of birth. If you’d been born in Pakistan you’d probably be Muslim.
What was that about rich people having a hard time getting into Heaven? The Catholic Church seems to have no moral qualms about hoarding unimaginable wealth while millions starve. It also seems less than rigorous about confessing to its own sins.
Personally, if I needed a babysitter for a young child I’d trust and of the gay people I know before I’d leave the kid alone with a priest.
Disgusting, ignorant, irrational, idiotic bigotry isn’t confined to racism.
Do you worry about your heterosexual neighbours’ sex lives? No? Then what the hell business is it of yours what your gay neighbours do.
Most homophobes are not scared of gays, they are scared that someone might think they are gay. They are scare because they have been taught from childhood that it is shameful, sinful.
FFS, grow minds of your own.
LikeLike
Apologies for the many typos in the comment above.
LikeLike
buddhuu, I have a question for you.
Do you now, or have you ever PRACTICED homosexuality?
LikeLike
@ thwack:
It’s none of your damned business but no. If I had done then I would disclose it without blinking.
If I were single and found a male attractive then I would do so. With due respect to my male brethren, I just don’t find our sex attractive. In fact, I find stereotypical, brash, macho poser type men shallow and annoying.
I have friends who find both men and women attractive and who have had relationships with both. That seems very sensible to me. Both of those people are what I would term free-thinkers. They seem to be personalities that have little difficulty rejecting or ignoring indoctrination and conditioning. Both are open about their lifestyles and don’t give a damn about anyone else’s approval.
LikeLike
Thank you for your response buddhuu.
I have one more question for you.
Do you now, or have you ever PRACTICED pedophilia?
LikeLike
How the hell do the actions of gay men kissing or having sex affect your life in any way or pose a detrimental effect on the world? It can’t be because you believe sex is only for procreation and that homosexuality is sexually immoral, given your avid porn consumption (something that your Catholic religion would also likely frown upon).
LikeLike
Your close-minded, unjustifiable bigotry is no different than the racism that you supposedly condemn.
LikeLike
Toa, I think most women lose their sex drive after that first piece of wedding cake. As for two men kissing or having sex, they wouldn’t be doing that if they were married, perhaps these men you saw were single and lonely? Or perhaps married and hard up for some action?
LikeLike
Brother buddhuu,
you’ll forgive me I hope, but your protests (against what Kushite Prince, seemingly, stirred up) are full of platitudes.
What is “natural behaviour”? Driving around in cars? Flying rockets? Dropping bombs? Using computers?
^ No good buddhuu. Our [us humans] talent and advantage as a species is the use of our intellect (and a vast array of other qualities) to survive and even prosper in the environment. Living in huts or developing agriculture is just as natural as flying rockets. We just needed more time and continued exploration of the environment to go from hut living to rocket flying. Just selecting one of your platitudes there.
——————————————————————————————————
I think Kushite Prince is wrong and vapid in 99.99% of his comments so no one should think I’m coming to his defense now. Having said that, I want to say this:
It seems to me KP made a criticism of the type of culture coming out of Hollywood. Then, the PC brigade thought they’d show what enlightened human beings they are by claiming (with not enough evidence) that the criticism he made shows he’s a homophobe. People tried to shame him into shutting up, people also made an accusation that didn’t follow from what he initially said.
To me KP’s initial comment was on the same level as the following:
“Jews overwhelmingly own the Hollywood media industry.”
A person who makes that statement might be an antisemite but we can’t tell from that statement alone. And we shouldn’t try to shame them into not discussing whether there is an ethnic ownership issue in Hollywood by calling them names or implying that they have a hateful character. What should be pursued is: whether there really is a high Jewish ownership of Hollywood. Suspicions regarding possible anti semitism of the speaker should be pursued by letting them flap there gums some more or just asking them.
Jewish people are not so special that no one can say the word “Jew” because if they do they are an anti semite. Similarly homosexuals are not so special that people shouldn’t be allowed to raise criticism about seeing more of them in the media than they care to.
LikeLike
@ thwack.
In response to your question, no. And would not. Aside from the fact that children are of no interest to me in that context (not having developed the characteristics that trigger a sexual response), I would not consider anyone for a sexual partner if they were unable to give informed consent. That means no coercion, no false-pretences, and no exploiting people who are too young to have the life experience to give mature, informed consent.
Even those of us who are not religious have guiding ethical principles.
I fail to see the relevance of your question to the topic beyond the fact that you like to dress up and play interrogator. Perhaps you’d care to enlighten me.
LikeLike
People who are asleep, drugged, or otherwise cognitively impaired are obviously also inappropriate for consideration as sex partners as they cannot consent.
LikeLike
buddhuu
@ thwack.
I fail to see the relevance of your question to the topic beyond the fact that you like to dress up and play interrogator. Perhaps you’d care to enlighten me.
—————————————————————————————————
The language of your support and defense of homosexuality is the same argument used by polygamists , NAMBLA, people into beastiality, incest, pimps….
If two or more people like to engage in a certain BEHAVIOR, they should be supported and defended in doing it?
What about 2 white supremacists?; should they be supported and defended with special status as a “protected group?”
Are you race-aphobic?
LikeLike
My ethical system promotes freedom and equality for all. However, Individual freedom extends only to the point where it harms or compromises the freedom of others.
Sex with those who cannot give considered, competent, mature, informed, uncoerced consent is not permissible in my world, therefore pedopholia and your NAMBLA thing are not valid or relevant to this discussion. As I am a vegetarian and believer in the ethical treatment of animals then bestiality is also irrelevant.
The fact that similar terms are used to defend/promote ideas does not make those ideas equivalent. I hope you’re not dumb enough to think that would work as an argument or refutation. Biologists use some of the same language to describe ostriches and humans: warm-blooded, biped, vertebrate… Doesn’t make them the same thing.
Am I race-aphobic? Assuming that I understand what you mean by that term, I don’t believe so. Again, I fail to see how that relates or equates to my rejection of homophobia as a superstitious and indefensible prejudice unworthy of rational people. I look forward to your explanation.
If you have a point, perhaps you’d care to make it clearly and succinctly. If it is an invalid or bigoted point I will try to do you the courtesy of demolishing it with similar directness.
LikeLike
@ Legion:
Apologies, I missed your earlier comment. I’m just reading back over relevant comments to refresh my memory and will reply later. Thanks.
LikeLike
Ah, I hadn’t seen Kushite Prince’s substantial comment on that other thread. I hadn’t been back to that one since the declaration of this subject being off topic because I haven’t seen that movie yet and so can’t contribute to the actual topic. I’d assumed that further discussion would move here.
If you’d kindly bear with me, looks like I have some catching up to do before I sound off again.
LikeLike
@abagond:
LOL, Ok, what did I do this time to trigger moderation?
LikeLike
@ buddhuu
Ku-SHIT-e Prince
LikeLike
No problem buddhuu, whenever you have time.
LikeLike
buddhuu
If you have a point, perhaps you’d care to make it clearly and succinctly. If it is an invalid or bigoted point I will try to do you the courtesy of demolishing it with similar directness.
———————————————————————————–
The only thing you demolished was the little bit of integrity you had left; but its expected seeing as you were the same person calling for Ray Rices’ head on a platter Even though Janay married him.
Your ethical system promotes tricking black people into supporting BEHAVIORS which work against them. Until black people master marriage 101 please refrain in promoting and defending behaviors which work against it.
Go push your gay agenda on white people.
LikeLike
@ Legion:
Thanks for your patience. Home phone line is down so I only have web access from the office at the moment. Slows things down a bit.
Ok, firstly: yup you called me correctly on the following:
That was a poorly considered and lazy response. Busted.
I’m not sure I accept that what I spout are necessarily platitudes. They may be well-worn sentiments that are trotted out by liberals, but I am not a liberal and the things I say are not said through any particular regard for political correctness. There is an ideology to which I subscribe and an ethical code that I try to live by. These are not dogmatic but pragmatic: I genuinely believe that these codes offer the best guidance for people’s lives. A significant portion of my time is spend disseminating Anarchist-Communist information and propaganda. Spreading the word, if you like. Where I differ from accepted AnCom thinking I go with my own opinion and reject orthodoxy (not that there is much orthodoxy). That is rarely necessary.
To me, many key struggles for equality and freedom from oppression share much in common. I support equality on the bases of race, gender and sexual preference. These are issues of who people ARE, and they are not issues that inherently impact upon, or limit, the freedom of others. A black person does me no harm by being black; a gay person does me no harm by being gay; a transgender person does me no harm by identifying as other than cis. Why should I oppress people for being themselves when they are, in all respects, my equals? All of these groups experience disadvantage from the privilege of others. When members of any of those groups (and others) ALIGN themselves with the oppressors of other groups I am uncomfortable.
I accept that to members of each group their own struggle is of paramount importance, but to deny intersectionality is to play into the hands of privilege. It is divisive. For gays to be racist, for POC to be homophobic… I don’t get it.
With no disrespect intended to Kush!te Prince I’ll use the KP initials to avoid triggering moderation again.
When I responded to KP’s comment on the “Dear White People” thread my response was phrased in the form of questions that challenged him – not to shut up but to respond. They were not solely rhetorical, I really did expect responses. If the tone of my own comments came across as personally insulting to KP then I apologise to him.
Enough for one comment. I’ll continue in another lest this becomes to big to read without getting lost. Brevity is a talent I lack.
I do disagree with some of what you, Legion, say as well as much of what KP quoted in his response to critics. I’ll explain in a while. Just need to get lunch first.
LikeLike
@ Legion and KP.
I accept that Hollywood, like most corporate and mainstream media, presents a version of reality that suits the establishment agenda. Furthermore, it is not something that “just happens” it is clearly policy.
KP said:
Ok, this may make a point about Hollywood but, to me, the point is more anti-gay. It may be a case of different perspectives but what I see here is the implication that gay is bad. Depicting a gay POC is somehow “effeminising”. One could argue that that is derogatory to both gays and women. Gays are not, by definition, effeminate. The defining characteristic of a gay person is sexual attraction to others of the same sex/gender. So, to me, this stereotypes gays as effeminate as well as implying that female/feminine characteristics (“effeminate”) are also somehow bad – or of less worth than that which is manly.
Just as language and attitudes are pre-shaped according to society’s history of racism and white privilege, they are equally shaped by its history of male patriarchy and sexism.
I won’t reproduce KP’s quote from Mwalimu Baruti. If anyone wishes to refer to it it is at https://abagond.wordpress.com/2014/10/17/trailer-dear-white-people/#comment-260061. Suffice to say that I entirely disagree with it.
So, the term “homophobic” is now frowned upon because it is a tool of a gay conspiracy to control global society? Hello, tinfoil-beanie dude. Let’s just say that I’m not convinced [/understatement].
Ok, instead of “homophobe” I’ll use the term “anti-homosexual bigot”.
One thing I do agree with is that language is used as a tool of political manipulation – on all sides.
Why do some people feel the need to react against gay people’s struggle for freedom from oppression. Similarly, many react against feminism. What I see in that reaction is just another layer added to that oppression. A bogus cause that excuses it. “Aaargh! The gays/women are trying to take over the world and they want to make me gay/female!”
It is idiocy. It is an inability to see beyond societal conditioning. It is the rejection of independent thought, and subscription to the narrative of the patriarchy.
Seriously, there is a wider oppression than just racism. These struggles should occur in common, not in competition. We are being divided and ruled.
LikeLike
@ thwack:
I don’t remember that. Please link/quote my call “for Ray Rices’ head on a platter”. That’s the guy who punched out a woman, right?
LikeLike
Buddhuu, thank you for those responses. They were great, they felt really from you, as I read them. Your other responses had sounded (to me) like auto pilot ideology coming out. If you’ll give me a little time, I’ll say something back, a little later.
LikeLike
@ Legion:
Cheers. I appreciate the discussion.
It also does no harm for me to get told off when I tallk cr/\p. 🙂
LikeLike
Buddhuu,
please excuse me. I haven’t provided you the responses, I told you were forthcoming. I must not have realized at the time but I think I was already sort of talked out on whether it was inherently homophobic to make a criticism about seeing homosexuals in mainstream media.
I did not wish to say something I might regret (the subject is a risky one). I also did not want to discuss anything hackneyed. On taboo subjects evasive and hackneyed commentary have a way of rearing their self righteous indignant heads; this bores and upsets me.
Let’s forget about homosexuality itself for a moment. Because of your political disposition you know full well that mainstream media was very quickly turned toward propaganda purposes by those with an interest and the power to do so. It’s only logical that this would have happened. There are plenty of values and lifestyles that people don’t wish to see in the media. If I refuse to see a movie for the sole reason that the hero is another white man saving humanity, does it mean I’m racist? Of course not, it means I’m tired.
It’s the same with the homosexual representation. If someone takes objection with seeing black males as gay characters in media films, the objection need not be shamed by accusations of homophobia. There are a whole host of reasons a person might object to such an image.
We are not as autonomous as we like to think we are. The environment shapes us too. It is not the case that man shapes the environment in a one way battle of will. Given that this is so, it’s only prudent to take care what images one exposes themselves to. Not wanting to see homosexuals in the media or not wanting to see blacks shown as homosexuals is a way of putting a brake on what images one is being exposed to, if you think there is something wrong with that, please share your perspective as to why.
Lastly, we live in a liberal state. I’m not interested in suppressing or denying anyone their rights, including homosexuals. It’s matters like denial of rights that would be a more serious metric of homophobia. Not wanting to see them in cinema is just a cultural choice. And critically, I would never seek to deny movies being made that have gay depictions, again that sort of stance pro or con would be a better metric of possible homophobia.
The response to KP by a few of the commenters was premature, boring, and hackneyed (sort of the essence of the barren and sickening philosophy of political correctness). They turned me off to wanting to talk about any of this pretty much from the start. Anyway, I hope I’ve made sense, I owed you the comment and that’s why I made it but now I feel very talked out on this subject.
LikeLike
Legion, thanks for the response. No worries about the pause; we’re not working to a schedule here. 🙂
What you say does make sense. I think our perspectives are different enough that plenty of potential remains for interesting exchanges, but I respect your feeling of being talked out on this one. It happens to me often enough.
Always good talking with you.
LikeLike
Buddhuu, sorry for sounding so stilted. I was making an effort to make the comment.
Enjoy the rest of your week-end. Although, you have a little less of it left than me, considering time differences. 🙂
LikeLike
Are you homophobic? In my opinion yes. And you absolutely have the right to be homophobic. But let’s play devil’s advocate. Let me just ask you, if someone were to write the same article, but replace the word “gay” with “black”, would you think that person is racist? Or if you replaced “gay” with Muslim, Jew, atheist, women, etc. Would you think that person is prejudiced against people from that category? Let’s try it:
“Here is how I feel about black people as a white person:
When I see two black people kiss I feel uncomfortable.
When I see two white people kiss I am turned on. Do not ask me why.
I believe that blacks having sex with whites is a sin. The same for latinos with whites. But then so are most sex acts, not just those. That comes from my badly practised racial bigotry.
That same bigotry – and my own experience – teaches me that blacks are no worse or better than I am. Men are naturally sinful. I have sins enough of my own. It is part of the fallen nature of man.
I do not believe in black-white marriage.
If my son married a black person I would be saddened, but I would not disown him.
From this some say that I hate blacks.
That goes too far. It seems to come from the idea that if I do not like something you do, then I must hate you.”
So. Based on this, would you claim the author is racist, and hates black people? Or not? My answer would be yes, and yes. Just some food for thought.
LikeLike
I’m surprised nobody mentioned the Kinsey Scale. I know it’s not a perfect study, but human sexuality has never been a total dichotomy between homosexuality and hetersexuality. “Transgender” and “gay” people have always existed, and societies throughout human history have had various rules regarding gender identity and sexuality. We could talk about Two-Spirit, ‘homosexual’ marriages in precolonial African societies, etc.
I believe there’s also data on young people in the US and UK that point to a shift where people will not be ‘forced’ to ‘choose’ queer or straight identitities. To me this just points out that sexual preferences are not some binary opposition, and there’s more ambiguity. Audre Lorde’s famous Zami indicates how fluid sexuality can be.
LGBT folks deserve the same rights as everyone else, including the right to get married! They might as well, opposite sex marriages seem to end in divorce half the time anyway! What’s the moral argument against gay marriage if two consenting adults want to get married? Who knows, their marriage might be much more successful or healthy than a ‘traditional’ marriage.
LikeLike
http://www.armory.com/tests/100.html
*whee*
LikeLike
@ Abagond
Seeing that this post was written almost a decade ago, is it something you would consider updating? Or do you still mostly hold the same views as when you wrote this?
LikeLike
I second an update. Certainly updated links if not an updated outlook.
LikeLike
@ Solitare @ Afrofem
By popular demand I will do an update.
LikeLike
@ Abagond
Thanks for the update.
LikeLike
@ Abagond
Before I forget, please consider adding a link from your update to the “See Also” links on this post.
LikeLike
Update: I wrote an update to this post: Am I still homophobic?
LikeLike
@ Afrofem
Thanks!
LikeLike