Homophobia

[xssve]

I dunno if it was SNL where I first saw Prince, but I think this is the first performance of his I saw, or one like it, that tour anyway.

Read the comments.

 

[LaRocha]

I dunno if it was SNL where I first saw Prince, but I think this is the first performance of his I saw, or one like it, that tour anyway.

Read the comments.

Dire Straights "Money for Nothing": "That little faggot with the earring in his ear."

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Campaign Promise #1.

As the Fascist Candidate for President in 2012, if elected, I promise to relocate faggots from Key West and San Francisco to all the inner city ghettos where they can work their magic with their natural interior decorating talents.

 

[CharleyH]

Interesting discussion. There was a gang rape up in BC Canada not too long ago. It went virile on the Internet because some bright dude thought a gang rape was fun. I feel bad for the girl - she didn't ask for or deserve that sort of treatment and NO, it didn't happen because young people are desensitized to sex because of the internet. If you think of gang rape (in terms other than simply disgusting), isn't it all just a cry for acceptance, "See, dude, I'm not a homosexual and can fuck a ho as brutally as you can, my leader."

Seriously, I've hung with loads of guys and not one of them would gang bang a chick. Why? Because they are respectful of women and comfortable in their own sexuality. Outside of fantasy, gangbanging and rape are for the weak, for the chickens who can't get laid.

 

[CharleyH]

OH right, Sorry Homophobia thread. Well, let me say this ... if a dude was gang banged at a rave, would anyone think to question that he was raped?

 

[xssve]

It is a good point; part of the homophobic attitude is that woman as victim is more acceptable than man as consensual partner - it's a corollary to the hidden misogyny inherent in homophobia, i.e., a homosexual is a feminized man, and thus a fair target for abuse and/or violence.

These are the same guys that believe women need to be "handled" - not in the more bipartisan social sense, masculine way, but a competitive ideology that again, stresses ones position in the alpha hierarchy, masking the stunted social skills of men who already have a difficult time discerning the line between natural masculinity and abusive, degenerate sociopathy.

 

[Stella_Omega]

yes, misogyny is probably a big part of homophobia. It doesn't make sense, but phobias rarely do make "sense."

 

[xssve]

It makes perfect sense in the the masculine vs. feminine, "war of the sexes" sense, it's practically the only way it does make sense.

 

[Stella_Omega]

It makes perfect sense in the the masculine vs. feminine, "war of the sexes" sense, it's practically the only way it does make sense.

It's not "war of the sexes, though, is it? Rather it's the male notion that "being made into a woman" (by another man) is the worst possible fate that could possibly befall a man. That's a male-applied standard created by men for men, and that standard implies a whole lot of misogyny.

 

[Huckleman2000]

yes, misogyny is probably a big part of homophobia. It doesn't make sense, but phobias rarely do make "sense."

I again think you're giving short-shrift to female homophobia, here. As an acquaintance pointed out to me recently, men may try to kill you, but women try to get you to kill yourself.

Women, for all their purportedly superior "emotional" sensitivities, also seem perfectly capable of emotional battery and abuse. Homophobic women display the same sort of lashing out against "un-natural" gender-sexual roles. Gay men having complicated, mutually distrustful relationships with their mothers is not just a Freudian trope - ask any homo over 40.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I again think you're giving short-shrift to female homophobia, here. As an acquaintance pointed out to me recently, men may try to kill you, but women try to get you to kill yourself.

Women, for all their purportedly superior "emotional" sensitivities, also seem perfectly capable of emotional battery and abuse. Homophobic women display the same sort of lashing out against "un-natural" gender-sexual roles. Gay men having complicated, mutually distrustful relationships with their mothers is not just a Freudian trope - ask any homo over 40.

You are quite correct Huck.

I might suggest that if a woman has that vaunted emotional sensitivity, it might be what makes her facility with emotional battery so effective. It's the tool these women are most facile with, for good or ill.

But I was thinking about male homophobia, and that particular issue of girl-cooties horror. It's evident that some women subscribe to the same notion, that being feminine in any way is worse than death for a man, and it's also evident that some women subscribe to other male-engendered ideas of male primacy. But I don't think that women were the historical engineers of those ideas.

or something like that.

 

[Xelebes]

You are quite correct Huck.

I might suggest that if a woman has that vaunted emotional sensitivity, it might be what makes her facility with emotional battery so effective. It's the tool these women are most facile with, for good or ill.

But I was thinking about male homophobia, and that particular issue of girl-cooties horror. It's evident that some women subscribe to the same notion, that being feminine in any way is worse than death for a man, and it's also evident that some women subscribe to other male-engendered ideas of male primacy. But I don't think that women were the historical engineers of those ideas.

or something like that.

I have seen a few women who are phobic of being made men, who feel they get all their power from their femininity.

And on that point, why does emasculate and effeminate mean the same thing?

 

[Stella_Omega]

I have seen a few women who are phobic of being made men, who feel they get all their power from their femininity.

And on that point, why does emasculate and effeminate mean the same thing?

Because men define from fear?

 

[sr71plt]

Well, let me say this ... if a dude was gang banged at a rave, would anyone think to question that he was raped?

Yes, of course, if the sex was with women. If he claimed rape, wouldn't he just get the horse laugh?

 

[Stella_Omega]

Yes, of course, if the sex was with women. If he claimed rape, wouldn't he just get the horse laugh?

And yet again we see evidence of that general male assumption about women being weak and helpless and always handy for male pleasure.

(NOT you making that assumption, sr71plt, I hasten to add-- but yeah, most men would not believe a man could be gang-raped by women, or be unhappy about it.)

 

[sr71plt]

And yet again we see evidence of that general male assumption about women being weak and helpless and always handy for male pleasure.

(NOT you making that assumption, sr71plt, I hasten to add-- but yeah, most men would not believe a man could be gang-raped by women, or be unhappy about it.)

The (few) cases I can remember, it wasn't that those reacting to it didn't believe women could overpower the man (probably didn't think about that)--they essentially were in disbelief that the man would object to multiple "scoring" even if he were held down for it.

 

[Boota]

I think some of that assumption would come from the type of sex act. If the man had an erection I think most would assume that he was into it. Not necessarily so, but I think that would be the general assumption.

 

[Huckleman2000]

I think some of that assumption would come from the type of sex act. If the man had an erection I think most would assume that he was into it. Not necessarily so, but I think that would be the general assumption.

I don't know how the physiology works with men, but I've read that some women become aroused or even orgasm during rapes. That doesn't change the fact that it's a rape.

Now, I don't know it I've ever heard of a non-consensual reverse gangbang, but...

 

[Huckleman2000]

back to the point...

Lawsuits Accuse Megachurch Leader of Sexual Misconduct

ATLANTA — Two young men in Georgia said Tuesday that the pastor of a 33,000-person Baptist megachurch, Bishop Eddie L. Long, had repeatedly coerced them into having sex with him.

In two lawsuits filed in DeKalb County, the men said that Bishop Long, a prominent minister and television personality, had used his position as a spiritual counselor to take them on trips out of state and perform sexual acts on them.

Bishop Long is the pastor of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church in Lithonia, an Atlanta suburb. It is one of the largest churches in the country.

 

[xssve]

It's not "war of the sexes, though, is it? Rather it's the male notion that "being made into a woman" (by another man) is the worst possible fate that could possibly befall a man. That's a male-applied standard created by men for men, and that standard implies a whole lot of misogyny.

This would be the conventional wisdom version on the subject, it's attractive because it's logical, and deep down, everybody except your radical feminists, or women going through a radical feminist phase harbor doubts about the existence of some grand conspiracy on the part of males to keep women down - and in some respects, it is a bit delusional, we don't really have secret meetings, but at the same time, there is an alpha hierarchy at work at all times, even when it's not apparent, and in that hierarchy, the status of women is just confusing, the instinct is to treat females as a separate class: in the hierarchy itself, often based on physical strength, skill and aggression, strategy, etc., in short the ability to establish and maintain a zone of physical safety is paramount - it evolved from the need to protect the weaker members of a given social group, familial or tribal, from outside aggressors and/or predators, and selected for on that basis.


It's a primate thing, not a logical construct, and thus often defies rational logic - a woman attempting to find a place in the hierarchy of a given group of males, simply has too many things going against her: even if she can kick ass, she's going to be vulnerable when she's pregnant, and thus, in some sense, "unreliable" - nobody is going to force a woman to take the field of combat when she's pregnant, in a very real sense the entire centripetal defensive response evolved to avoid that very possibility, and thus, logically, becomes a functional contradiction.

Further, in centripetal-acentric species, the males often employ force against females simply to keep them from straying outside the zone of protection - the abstract version of this is the practice of sequestering females, they are assumed to be not only defenseless, but prone to getting themselves into situations where everybody has to drop everything to go rescue them - even if they don't want to be rescued, since not all of this is entirely free of self interest for whatever males are concerned, who are also motivated to maintain a breeding monopoly over these particular females, whether for themselves, or as a vehicle for bonding with other males.

This sheds more light on women's role in the alpha hierarchy, in some sense, they are groomed and traded in order to form and maintain political alliances on one level, and these ties are really much stronger than the converse, almost to the point of matriarchy: the bible says a man will leave his father and mother, and cleave unto his wife, the implication being that the female is expected to maintain closer ties to her family than the man is to his, he in essence joins the females family, and this how thing in fact work in matriarchal cultures. In the Dineh, for example, I am born (belong) to my wife's mother's family, and born for her father clan - her clan are now my relatives, I'm born to Kinyaa’32nii (and I'm forbidden to marry any of them, it's tantamount to incest), and born for whatever her fathers clan was (not sure, he was Pawnee).

In any case, the point is that women in various ways, are the thing the alpha hierarchy itself is organized around, and in most cases, these particular tribal systems of organization, whatever they may be, tend to reflect the selection stressors that created the need for an alpha hierarchy to begin with.

Thus, it becomes something of a biological inconsistency to include women in the alpha hierarchy that is essentially evolved around them, for purposes of their protection - i.e., it's a logical contradiction because it's a biological contradiction.

And, it isn't that females have no status, but they tend to acquire status in more diverse ways - they may acquire it by supporting their particular circle of alpha males, mates and their compatriots, who will serve notice on any interlopers trying to horn in on their pussy - one tidbit that reinforces this theory, is that men are most likely to cheat with a woman outside their social circle, women are more likely to cheat with someone inside their social circle, i.e., another member of her personal "bodyguard".

Naturally, since a lot of this works on an instinctual, or subconscious/unconscious level, traits encoded in the paleomammalian cortex, there is a multiplicity of instantiations and variations on this theme, but in most of them, women are excluded by definition from possessing status in the alpha hierarchy itself, although they may exert considerable influence from without.

So, that gives you several options to choose from in terms of any actual "threat" posed by homosexuals - i.e., that an effeminate man is not the kind of guy you want watching your back in a fracas - but that only applies to effeminate males, precisely the ones that are most likely to be accommodated in your average indigenous tribal culture, where they are simply treated like women, do women's work etc., and probably don't really stress anybody out, or cause too many fights because they can't have children, taking the whole paternity issue out of the equation as a source of conflict - they're roughly analogous to sterile females.

Western culture, since the Greeks, has gradually evolved towards less and less tolerance toward homosexuality, probably peaking somewhere in the Nineteenth century, but broadly institutionalized and with a significant residual influence, and in that, does not tend to discriminate between the masculine or effeminate, gay is gay, butch or femme, but it tends to be the femme's who are harrassed - no?

In short, homosexuals, like women, are excluded from having any status in the alpha hierarchy, and in this, the formal hierarchy tends to reflect the various informal hierarchies (or vice versa, a chicken/egg question there), and thus roughly occupy the same status as an unprotected female - that is, basically none, other than whatever s/he can assert for him/herself - a gay male is in some sense then, approximately the same thing as a rogue female: fair game, and not entitled to group protection until somebody claims him/her, and is willing to offer protection - all the more unlikely since they have no reproductive potential as females.

In a more modern, civilized paradigm, this all seems pretty primitive - that's because it is, and I strongly suspect that the phenomena of homophobia is itself largely the product of civilization - I doubt it even existed to any great degree in paleolithic cultures, it's more primitive even than that - it arises directly from whatever stressors drove our hominid ancestors to centripetalize, the phase between acentric-centripetal and centripetal-acentric.

The latter, centripetal-acentric, tends to be a much more authoritarian form of social organization - populations of Chimpanzees are called communities, groups of Baboons are called troops, and their structure, is highly martialized - rogue behavior is not tolerated, the females and younger members are constantly herded in order to maintain a fairly tight pack, even when there is no immediate threat, which the alpha hierarchy is capable of defending on the open Savannah where there is no natural cover should a threat suddenly appear.

Arboreal species, tend to spread out a lot more and there are fewer obstacles to pursuing ones particular interests, the community only acts in concert when a valid threat is presented, acentric-centripetal.

One can only speculate that the trait arises from approximately the same selection stressors that make people suspicious of rogues, male or female - they present a threat to the social bonds of the group, the rogue female may seduce responsible males (see St. Paul), and the homosexual male occupies roughly the same status as a rogue female - i.e., I think you can predict, based on this, that a homophobic individual, male or female, will tend to have nearly equally strong negative reactions to the presence of a promiscuous female.

It becomes then, largely a matter of degree - these sorts of centripetalized social orders tend to elevate the female to sanctified, almost mythic, status, mother worship basically, where any sort of more realistic, everyday realities of human sexuality tend to cause significant cognitive dissonance - women are so idealized that anything that threatens to sully this symbol of purity is going to be the target of a great deal of psychic violence, which in turn may be acted out in the form of actual violence.

So, another contradiction: it's a form of misogyny that stems from an over-idealization of women, one where any sort of everyday quotidian or banal sort of sexuality is intolerable - serial killers who emerge from strict religious backgrounds frequently target prostitutes or other women they perceive as promiscuous, homophobia is, in a sense, a lesser pathology of the same thing - if the individual in question suffers from this particular idealization pathology, but have retain strong inhibitions against violence against women, homosexual men become a convenient proxy target, not being in fact, women, but representing, as a subconscious symbol, the same fear of the... I dunno, what would you call it? Slut-mother?

i.e., implicit in the idealized mother object is her exact opposite, the virgin/whore dichotomy.

It can be simplified by calling it an unresolved Oedipus complex, which it resembles, but in case you think Freud is mumbo jumbo, go see the anthropological background above which explains a lot about how an Oedipus complex might be expected to be selected for in the first place - it really isn't at all in evidence in any other mammal, they lack the the extremely complex social arrangements that humans have, and a much more marginal and limited set of K strategy behaviors - and, they are incapable of forming abstract categories, which are often expressed in binary pairs, like the virgin/whore dichotomy.

Maybe I'm overthinking it, but my gut tells me there is something Oedipal in the whole business, as you said, a phobia, essentially the expression of a neurosis, are not necessarily logical, nor would I consider it a preemptive explanation, but the fear of being fondled by a man just doesn't fly, it doesn't explain the violence of the reaction, I mean a blowjob is a blowjob, right? It seems to be something acquired rather than innate.

There is a necessity here for some sort of idealized object, whether it be a masculine or a feminine ideal, or both.

Either way, you end back full circle right square in the middle of gender politics, and the attendant exaggerations of the anrdo/gyno dichotomy that go beyond mere practicalities of role, division of labor, etc., or else you have to interpret homophobia as a crudely explicit threat against women using a man as an example.

 

[Stella_Omega]

yeah... I do think you're overthinking things.

Not to mention, basing conclusions on iffy premises. I think. It's hard to read this post. My eyeballs keep slipping away. Sorry about that....

 

[xssve]

It's pretty convoluted, I'm not even sure I'm following my own logic here, I'm basically implying that idealization of the female, typified by the pure or virgin mother, is a sort of separate abstract symbol, that feeds off of various otherwise functional primate socio-behavioral traits - i.e., it's not a threat against the mother, it's a threat against the symbol of the mother.

I should clarify: one can have a phobia without it being neurotic - a fear of heights for example can be a relatively practical thing, it motivates you to avoid fooling around on the edge of cliffs - but even phobia can take on neurotic dimensions - i.e., a phobia can reflect a rational fear, whereas a neurosis typically takes on an irrational dimension.

Thus, mild homophobia may simply reflect a fear of loss of status or being mistaken for being homosexual, and would motivate one mainly to avoid associating with homosexuals, and/or verbally condemning them in mixed company, the most common form of homophobic behavior I'm guessing, and in that sense, it's rational enough if in fact these consequences are demonstrably present.

To form an obsession about it and go out of your way to actively persecute homosexuals however implies an added neurotic dimension.

 

[Xelebes]

Reverse gangbang is such an ungainly term. Why isn't it called a flockfuck, broodbrooming or a peepcreep?

 

[Stella_Omega]

Reverse gangbang sound as if each guy sucks his come back into his body and leaves the room-- backwards, leaving her that little bit less sore.

Although I do kinda like flockfuck

 

[xssve]

I vote for flockfuck, definitely!