"The Invention Of The Heterosexual"

[Stella_Omega]

An interview with the author:

http://www.salon.com/2012/01/22/the_invention_of_the_heterosexual/singleton/

I want to pick out the gems from this interview but there are so many. I would copy and paste the entire thing!

Thoughts?

 

[CandiCame]

That was awesome!

And makes perfect sense. Heterosexuality (and homosexuality for that matter) always seemed to confining to me to be a natural norm- they had to be on the edge of the bell curve like in other species. I don't know why some folk are such dicks- honestly, I doubt I ever will.

 

[Safe_Bet]

Thoughts?


How about somebody taking a predrawn conclusion and then trying to support it with random factoids.

In other words, what she wrote pretty much has no basis in reality. It's simply an effort to sell more books based on the arguments generated by undocumented supposition.

 

[Stella_Omega]

such as?

 

[CandiCame]

Thoughts?


How about somebody taking a predrawn conclusion and then trying to support it with random factoids.

In other words, what she wrote pretty much has no basis in reality. It's simply an effort to sell more books based on the arguments generated by undocumented supposition.

But it's written close to APA standards.
She lists all kinds of sources.

 

[Safe_Bet]

such as?

Such as: her contention that there was no such thing as homosexuality before the 1890's! Sure the word "homosexual" didn't exist, but that doesn't mean the people, community, thought processes and genetics didn't.

Also it's VERY poor science to try to prove your theorem by stating that the converse can't be proven either.

It's simply another fine example of "Maggie Galagher-ish" pop psych selling of beliefs based upon opinion instead if valid research or science.

 

[Safe_Bet]

But it's written close to APA standards.
She lists all kinds of sources.

HAHAHAHAHA! What? The interview is in APA format? SERIOUSLY????

Next, you're gonna be telling me you meant the book! = which would make you a lying dumbass cuz you haven't read it to know! (Clue: It won't be released until the 31st of this month).

Nice try, though. Stupid, but nice.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Such as: her contention that there was no such thing as homosexuality before the 1890's! Sure the word "homosexual" didn't exist, but that doesn't mean the people, community, thought processes and genetics didn't.

I can't find any place where she says that.

 

[Safe_Bet]

I can't find any place where she says that.

"Psychiatry is responsible for creating the heterosexual in largely the same way that it is responsible for creating the various categories of sexual deviance that we are familiar with and recognize and define ourselves in opposition to. The period lasting from the late Victorian era to the first 20 or 30 years of the 20th century was a time of tremendous socioeconomic change, and people desperately wanted to give themselves a valid identity in this new world order. "



"Blank, a writer and historian who has written extensively about sexuality and culture, looks at the ways in which social trends and the rise of psychiatry conspired to create this new category in the late 19th and early 20th century. "

 

[Stella_Omega]

None of that says or implies that homosexual culture didn't already exist.

 

[CandiCame]

HAHAHAHAHA! What? The interview is in APA format? SERIOUSLY????

Next, you're gonna be telling me you meant the book! = which would make you a lying dumbass cuz you haven't read it to know! (Clue: It won't be released until the 31st of this month).

Nice try, though. Stupid, but nice.

Yes, I'm talking about the book. It was peer-reviewed, meaning it's written in either APA or MLA style. It's called reading comprehension and context clues.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Yes, I'm talking about the book. It was peer-reviewed, meaning it's written in either APA or MLA style. It's called reading comprehension and context clues.

yes indeed.

 

[Etoile]

Not touching this conversation with a 10-foot pole. I'm related to the author of the book, and I have studied the topic as well, so I recuse myself. Carry on though, it's amusing to see what people think about LGBT history.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Not touching this conversation with a 10-foot pole. I'm related to the author of the book, and I have studied the topic as well, so I recuse myself. Carry on though, it's amusing to see what people think about LGBT history.

Well, shit, that sucks. You might be the first person who could talk about it. It's not like we are academics around here.

 

[CandiCame]

Not touching this conversation with a 10-foot pole. I'm related to the author of the book, and I have studied the topic as well, so I recuse myself. Carry on though, it's amusing to see what people think about LGBT history.

Plus, it's cool, because you know the author really well.

And, you have thread-god powers, so what's the worst that could happen?

 

[Etoile]

Well, shit, that sucks. You might be the first person who could talk about it. It's not like we are academics around here.

Yeah, but it's hard to argue with people who have already made a decision about something, you know? I will give it a try though.

It's about identity. For example, people say the ancient Greeks were gay. They weren't. They engaged in what we now consider gay activity, because the men had sex with boys and the women messed around too. But they were not themselves gay, because there was no such thing. This is a hard concept for people to wrap their heads around, and it's understandable that there would be resistance to it. But historical evidence bears it out. It wasn't until Magnus Hirschfeld's Scientific-Humanitarian Committee popped up that we actually see people saying "hey, there are gay people, they have a culture of their own, etc." It started a little prior to that, too - see Krafft-Ebing and "sexual inversion" - but certainly no earlier than the mid-19th century. People have been having sex with the same gender for millennia, sure. But there were no "gay" and "straight" people. There were normal people, and there were people who didn't do what normal people did, but they didn't have a common cause, they didn't seek each other out (except for sexual encounters), they didn't form societies, etc until the mid-to-late 19th century. At that point, we start seeing groups like Oscar Wilde's buddies, the group surrounding Hirschfeld, etc. But before that, not a thing. There simply was no gay/straight.

Now, this doesn't mean that we can't look to historical figures like Alexander the Great, Lord Byron, etc. as role models. They were role models for the normalcy of having sex with your own gender. But if you went up to Sappho and said "hey, are you homosexual?" she would have no idea what you were talking about - she just liked to doink girls. The point of looking to these people as heroes is to say that doinking girls has been around for millennia. Not lesbians.

 

[Etoile]

Plus, it's cool, because you know the author really well.

And, you have thread-god powers, so what's the worst that could happen?

I don't moderate threads because people flame me. That's not how Lit works.

And yes, I know her well. I know she has a sterling reputation as a scholar. And a really adorable kitty who rides around on her shoulders.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Thanks, Etoile.

 

[CandiCame]

Yeah, but it's hard to argue with people who have already made a decision about something, you know? I will give it a try though.

It's about identity. For example, people say the ancient Greeks were gay. They weren't. They engaged in what we now consider gay activity, because the men had sex with boys and the women messed around too. But they were not themselves gay, because there was no such thing. This is a hard concept for people to wrap their heads around, and it's understandable that there would be resistance to it. But historical evidence bears it out. It wasn't until Magnus Hirschfeld's Scientific-Humanitarian Committee popped up that we actually see people saying "hey, there are gay people, they have a culture of their own, etc." It started a little prior to that, too - see Krafft-Ebing and "sexual inversion" - but certainly no earlier than the mid-19th century. People have been having sex with the same gender for millennia, sure. But there were no "gay" and "straight" people. There were normal people, and there were people who didn't do what normal people did, but they didn't have a common cause, they didn't seek each other out (except for sexual encounters), they didn't form societies, etc until the mid-to-late 19th century. At that point, we start seeing groups like Oscar Wilde's buddies, the group surrounding Hirschfeld, etc. But before that, not a thing. There simply was no gay/straight.

Now, this doesn't mean that we can't look to historical figures like Alexander the Great, Lord Byron, etc. as role models. They were role models for the normalcy of having sex with your own gender. But if you went up to Sappho and said "hey, are you homosexual?" she would have no idea what you were talking about - she just liked to doink girls. The point of looking to these people as heroes is to say that doinking girls has been around for millennia. Not lesbians.

Actually, my mind kind of works that same way- I guess I'm a throwback. I think that there's to much emphasis on gender in relationship roles. I kinda figured it was some kind of patriarchial bullshit- being raised how I was, I got that "Patriarchy is bad" speech so much... but gender roles were pretty much enforced by men so that they could keep up with their offspring- traditional male/female marriage and everything. That didn't originally have much to do with romantic relationships, did it? It was more or less selective breeding- and breeding is not identical to sex... And it makes no sense that humanity would be the only species on the planet where pansexuality was not the norm. This just makes so much more sense then the checkbox approach.

I don't really know what I'm trying to say. But I do really want to read this, because it seems like it's gonna make me feel a lot better about myself, you know?

 

[none2_none2]

Stella,
Thanks for sharing this article. It was a very good one. It is interesting how the interviewer pointed out that men tend to like cagetories. Her response was mentioning a safety factor. Plenty of men both gay and straight do seem to love categories quite a bit.

You can see this recently in a lot of backlash on some reason comments by Cynthia Nixon. She made the comment that FOR HER she saw her sexuality as more fluid and thus a choice. While some females were against what she said, it seemed like males had a much bigger need to condemn her. Plus, they felt the need to put another label on her -- bisexual. Of course, I don't think anybody has a good handle on bisexuality. Is it like the one drop rule on race? If a gay person isn't totally revolted by heterosexual sex or the opposite sex, are they really bi? Is it possible that plenty of those who claim to be on the extreme ends of the gay/str8 spectrum, do so not because they are that extreme, but because of the safety factor that the author brought up?

Another intersting take is the whole concept of language. In linguistics and anthropology they do debate the concept of what a culture understands based on its vocabulary. For instance, intellectuals in those fields have argued if you don't have a word for something, do you really understand its concept when someone from another culture which does have such a word and tries to convey that idea. One example would be colors. We may look at a rainbow and see X different colors. Would someone from a dense rain forest who may not have vocabulary words for that many colors really perceive the same X number of colors? Another example would be animals. Someone once pointed out that in middle eastern cultures there are so many words for the dromedary camel. We might see a camel and know it is a dromedary, but beyound that would we know various charastics of such an animal? We could be trained to understand it, but it would not be innate to us.

Again, thanks for the article. It is rare that we take a step back and approach topics such as sexuality from a different perspective.

 

[Safe_Bet]

Yes, I'm talking about the book. It was peer-reviewed, meaning it's written in either APA or MLA style. It's called reading comprehension and context clues.

Before you two great scholars question my reading comprehension further, please cite WHERE either in the interview OR the B&N web page where it said it was peer reviewed.

 

[Safe_Bet]

Yeah, but it's hard to argue with people who have already made a decision about something, you know? I will give it a try though.

It's about identity. For example, people say the ancient Greeks were gay. They weren't. They engaged in what we now consider gay activity, because the men had sex with boys and the women messed around too. But they were not themselves gay, because there was no such thing. This is a hard concept for people to wrap their heads around, and it's understandable that there would be resistance to it. But historical evidence bears it out. It wasn't until Magnus Hirschfeld's Scientific-Humanitarian Committee popped up that we actually see people saying "hey, there are gay people, they have a culture of their own, etc." It started a little prior to that, too - see Krafft-Ebing and "sexual inversion" - but certainly no earlier than the mid-19th century. People have been having sex with the same gender for millennia, sure. But there were no "gay" and "straight" people. There were normal people, and there were people who didn't do what normal people did, but they didn't have a common cause, they didn't seek each other out (except for sexual encounters), they didn't form societies, etc until the mid-to-late 19th century. At that point, we start seeing groups like Oscar Wilde's buddies, the group surrounding Hirschfeld, etc. But before that, not a thing. There simply was no gay/straight.

Now, this doesn't mean that we can't look to historical figures like Alexander the Great, Lord Byron, etc. as role models. They were role models for the normalcy of having sex with your own gender. But if you went up to Sappho and said "hey, are you homosexual?" she would have no idea what you were talking about - she just liked to doink girls. The point of looking to these people as heroes is to say that doinking girls has been around for millennia. Not lesbians.

Not gonna flame you, just disagreeing "oh god-like one!".

Sorry, but I STRONGLY question that there were never groups of like minded individuals who were sexually exclusive to their own gender. They might have been call "sodomites" instead of "homos", but the implication that everyone was bisexual prior to the 1890's is patently rediculous in my opinion. (and it's just that my OPINION. However, believing that I'm queer by choice and/or due to a change of terminology is just the author's opinion).

No doubt the author has a cute kitty, BTW.

 

[CandiCame]

Stella,
Thanks for sharing this article. It was a very good one. It is interesting how the interviewer pointed out that men tend to like cagetories. Her response was mentioning a safety factor. Plenty of men both gay and straight do seem to love categories quite a bit.

You can see this recently in a lot of backlash on some reason comments by Cynthia Nixon. She made the comment that FOR HER she saw her sexuality as more fluid and thus a choice. While some females were against what she said, it seemed like males had a much bigger need to condemn her. Plus, they felt the need to put another label on her -- bisexual. Of course, I don't think anybody has a good handle on bisexuality. Is it like the one drop rule on race? If a gay person isn't totally revolted by heterosexual sex or the opposite sex, are they really bi? Is it possible that plenty of those who claim to be on the extreme ends of the gay/str8 spectrum, do so not because they are that extreme, but because of the safety factor that the author brought up?

Another intersting take is the whole concept of language. In linguistics and anthropology they do debate the concept of what a culture understands based on its vocabulary. For instance, intellectuals in those fields have argued if you don't have a word for something, do you really understand its concept when someone from another culture which does have such a word and tries to convey that idea. One example would be colors. We may look at a rainbow and see X different colors. Would someone from a dense rain forest who may not have vocabulary words for that many colors really perceive the same X number of colors? Another example would be animals. Someone once pointed out that in middle eastern cultures there are so many words for the dromedary camel. We might see a camel and know it is a dromedary, but beyound that would we know various charastics of such an animal? We could be trained to understand it, but it would not be innate to us.

Again, thanks for the article. It is rare that we take a step back and approach topics such as sexuality from a different perspective.

This is why I'm absolutely OBSESSED with Lev Vygotski- he did a lot of work on vocabulary and how it forms thought. After you hit concrete development, you do start storing your thoughts in words, because you can do symbolic thinking- if there's not a word for something, you're forced to make one up- or that object/concept doesn't exist.

I really wish we'd replace the terms "gay" and "Strait" with "exclusive sexuality". That makes more sense to me- and I'm gonna start using it and see if it catches on.

To go farther with your camal metaphor- I have no idea what a "dromedary" is- I overgeneralize camals- but if I'm looking at a Holstein bovine, I know what that is- cultural literacy has told me to differentiate between cattle; which I'm familiar with as an American- but not camals, because I have no interest or experience with them.

I read a study about people who honestly can't see certain colors. There's a culture, though I forget which one, where the color "red" is divided into more catagories then we have- and they can honestly see the distinction, whereas we can't. Likewise, it's often been said that art students can see more color distinctions then those who haven't been trained. If you hold up, say, magenta and cranberry- or cranberry and cranapple to someone who hasn't tried to mix them perfectly, and they can't tell the difference. They really don't see the hue change. I thought that was pretty cool.

As far as sexuality goes- I guess I really like categories to. I spent the first month I was here trying to figure out what box I fit in so I could use it as a pick-up line- maybe that's wrong, but culturally, vocab wise, it seems necessary with our culture as violent as it is. "Gay" is an easy label that can be translated to, "I won't beat the shit out of you if you hit on me. You might even get laid." You need to know that going in- because people are still murdered.

So it creates this double-culture, where people feel we have to bond together as a political movement- about something that shouldn't be political at all- as a reaction to, well, an attack. And as a convenient way to tell who will and who won't be in your dating pool. I don't like it- but in our culture, right here, right now, I don't have a better solution. I'm kinda hoping that the whole "representative democracy" thing will turn up someone smarter then me who does- but so far, no cigar.

 

[Safe_Bet]

Before you two great scholars question my reading comprehension further, please cite WHERE either in the interview OR the B&N web page where it said it was peer reviewed.

Hmmmm... Guess not, huh???

 

[PricelessT]

Yeah, but it's hard to argue with people who have already made a decision about something, you know? I will give it a try though.

It's about identity. For example, people say the ancient Greeks were gay. They weren't. They engaged in what we now consider gay activity, because the men had sex with boys and the women messed around too. But they were not themselves gay, because there was no such thing. This is a hard concept for people to wrap their heads around, and it's understandable that there would be resistance to it. But historical evidence bears it out. It wasn't until Magnus Hirschfeld's Scientific-Humanitarian Committee popped up that we actually see people saying "hey, there are gay people, they have a culture of their own, etc." It started a little prior to that, too - see Krafft-Ebing and "sexual inversion" - but certainly no earlier than the mid-19th century. People have been having sex with the same gender for millennia, sure. But there were no "gay" and "straight" people. There were normal people, and there were people who didn't do what normal people did, but they didn't have a common cause, they didn't seek each other out (except for sexual encounters), they didn't form societies, etc until the mid-to-late 19th century. At that point, we start seeing groups like Oscar Wilde's buddies, the group surrounding Hirschfeld, etc. But before that, not a thing. There simply was no gay/straight.

Now, this doesn't mean that we can't look to historical figures like Alexander the Great, Lord Byron, etc. as role models. They were role models for the normalcy of having sex with your own gender. But if you went up to Sappho and said "hey, are you homosexual?" she would have no idea what you were talking about - she just liked to doink girls. The point of looking to these people as heroes is to say that doinking girls has been around for millennia. Not lesbians.

I definitely believe that heterosexuals and homosexuals always existed. Science heavily suggests that people can be heterosexual or homosexual (although the definitions of heterosexual and homosexual are sometimes based on predominant sexual attraction rather than exclusive sexual attraction), so I doubt that people are only heterosexual or homosexual today due to a social construct. That's not how sexual orientation, which is typically considered to be unchangeable, works...except for in cases of sexual identity. Sure, the terms "heterosexual" and "homosexual" are social constructs and have not always existed, but that's not the same thing as people being exclusively sexually attracted to one sex not having always existed. And let's not forget that a lot of people back then engaged in heterosexual sexual activity because heterosexuality (though not always having been called that) has always been viewed as normal, and there was the matter of marriage and bearing children.