Penetration

[Netzach]

Maybe humans in small tribes at the beginning of time, threatened with extermination by the Ice Age or something, developed a gay taboo in an attempt to perpetuate the species.

In contrast to that possibility is the fact that a body's a body. Barring illness or injury, from a physiological perspective we're all born bisexual switches. Physical pleasure is good, and it makes no sense to cut out half the population as possible partners for getting our rocks off.

And anyway, how could you explain ancient Greece, if that's so? They were closer to cavemen, by millennia, than we are. How did they escape that biological "auto-discriminate" default thing?

Closer to us than cavemen though, and the homosexuality was basically a socially enforced aversion to the female. Good for babies, but like loving your horse. If you bond with one you're kind of fruity.

Sorry, I breathed this stuff in school - nuttiness no?

I love how they're a totally different culture that gave us this one.

 

[IrisAlthea]

I'd also add an evolutionarily-honed urge to fill the world with humans, and thus, possibly, a biological auto-discriminate default for some people with regard to homosexuality.

I think the urge, if there is one, would be to fill the earth, not just with humans but with your own offspring.
That would make other people not procreating a good thing because it would reduce the competition for resources.

 

[HoHoBomb]

yeah, right now

 

[Stella_Omega]

I can't decide if you just assume the worst from my posts because I'm a straight non-cock-taking male, or if you are genuinely misunderstanding me, or if you just can't resist the urge to be combative when addressing a guy with my preferences on this subject.

Regardless, here's why I referenced explanation and apology in responding to Netzach. See the bolded parts of her post in the excerpt below.

Ah, I understand. There were so many other points in her post-- that I missed that remark.

I do tend to expect the worst from straight men, and for that I.. ..well, I kinda don't apologise for that either, but I will try to assume better with you.

 

[satindesire]

I think the urge, if there is one, would be to fill the earth, not just with humans but with your own offspring.
That would make other people not procreating a good thing because it would reduce the competition for resources.

Back in the loincloth wearing days, when you were lucky as hell to make it to 35 years old, there was no such thing as "competition for resources".

Remember, they didn't have hospitals, dentists, prescription medications, sewer systems, freezers or soap.

 

[Netzach]

Back in the loincloth wearing days, when you were lucky as hell to make it to 35 years old, there was no such thing as "competition for resources".

Remember, they didn't have hospitals, dentists, prescription medications, sewer systems, freezers or soap.

I'd think that if you're snaring marmots and picking berries the limitation of resources actually is a huge issue.

 

[satindesire]

I'd think that if you're snaring marmots and picking berries the limitation of resources actually is a huge issue.

Having as many offspring as possible so you have more hands to fish, weave baskets and hunt is a good thing when you're one bear mauling away from certain death.

 

[DeepGreenEyes]

Maybe humans in small tribes at the beginning of time, threatened with extermination by the Ice Age or something, developed a gay taboo in an attempt to perpetuate the species.

In contrast to that possibility is the fact that a body's a body. Barring illness or injury, from a physiological perspective we're all born bisexual switches. Physical pleasure is good, and it makes no sense to cut out half the population as possible partners for getting our rocks off.

And anyway, how could you explain ancient Greece, if that's so? They were closer to cavemen, by millennia, than we are. How did they escape that biological "auto-discriminate" default thing?

I'm thinking tribal stuff. I read an argument that the Old Testament's nastiness toward homosexuality was a tribal response to the fear of extermination, and the instinctive desire to have as many births as possible. The Greeks were way too cool, or way too untribal, and made such delicious salads and baklava that they soon realized that they could push beyond this biological poopyheadedness.

Not buying it.

If you want to make babies that badly, you're busy making them, not killing fags.

Also, there's an evolutionary argument for homosexuality and other non-reproducers and a social one for NOT casting them out - more children than adults at any given time.

How about this: post-tribal-evolutionary-gay-hating manifests itself in people that still see the world as tribal. Small bands of Us vs. Them. And manifests as suspicion, not murder. And there's some evolutionary part that I haven't figured out yet, because I need a grant.

Uh... Nope. being straight is obviously an evolutionary default, but hating and fearing gays is culturally instilled. There are plenty of cultures existing right now don't detest their gay men-- European, even.

I'm sorry. Europeans eat French Fries with mayo. Except for the Greeks.

I think the urge, if there is one, would be to fill the earth, not just with humans but with your own offspring.
That would make other people not procreating a good thing because it would reduce the competition for resources.

You could make that argument, and there's an intuitive appeal to it. So all the persecution of gays through eons of history has zero evolutionary component, and actually, in this case and in Netz's, is in spite of a biological predisposition in favor of gays? Damn. We must really hate us some queers, then.

 

[IrisAlthea]

Having as many offspring as possible so you have more hands to fish, weave baskets and hunt is a good thing when you're one bear mauling away from certain death.

Another pair of hands does always come with another mouth to feed.

More on the topic of homophobia though, you´d still want all those pairs of hands to carry as much of your genes as possible.

 

[satindesire]

Another pair of hands does always come with another mouth to feed.

More on the topic of homophobia though, you´d still want all those pairs of hands to carry as much of your genes as possible.

Yes, another pair of hands comes with another mouth to feed, but one person can produce more food than they consume, providing they're healthy. Multiple offspring to carry on the genetic code of the parents is something we as humans were born to have a drive for. "Be fruitful and multiply" isn't just a bible phrase in the Judeo-Christian sense, it's also something that was given to us simply because we are animals like all other animals on this planet. The drive to reproduce will always be with us. We're just animals with society and language.

 

[IrisAlthea]

I'm thinking tribal stuff. I read an argument that the Old Testament's nastiness toward homosexuality was a tribal response to the fear of extermination, and the instinctive desire to have as many births as possible. The Greeks were way too cool, or way too untribal, and made such delicious salads and baklava that they soon realized that they could push beyond this biological poopyheadedness.



How about this: post-tribal-evolutionary-gay-hating manifests itself in people that still see the world as tribal. Small bands of Us vs. Them. And manifests as suspicion, not murder. And there's some evolutionary part that I haven't figured out yet, because I need a grant.



I'm sorry. Europeans eat French Fries with mayo. Except for the Greeks.



You could make that argument, and there's an intuitive appeal to it. So all the persecution of gays through eons of history has zero evolutionary component, and actually, in this case and in Netz's, is in spite of a biological predisposition in favor of gays? Damn. We must really hate us some queers, then.

I´m not so sure the older tribal cultures or religions have been opposed to homosexuality. I´m not even sure how the non-abrahamic worldreligions wiew homosexuality.
I´m sure there are others here who know more.

 

[DeepGreenEyes]

I´m not so sure the older tribal cultures or religions have been opposed to homosexuality. I´m not even sure how the non-abrahamic worldreligions wiew homosexuality.
I´m sure there are others here who know more.

Oh great. Let's all be like little automatons and want facts again.

 

[IrisAlthea]

Oh great. Let's all be like little automatons and want facts again.

Sorry!

 

[Seurat]

post quoted later.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I'm thinking tribal stuff. I read an argument that the Old Testament's nastiness toward homosexuality was a tribal response to the fear of extermination, and the instinctive desire to have as many births as possible. The Greeks were way too cool, or way too untribal, and made such delicious salads and baklava that they soon realized that they could push beyond this biological poopyheadedness.

The Hebrew tribe were modern man, evolutionarily speaking. If homophobia were an evolved trait, it would have manifested looong before the OT times.

The Hebrew nastiness towards homosexuality was, indeed, a response to the fear of being wiped out, IMO-- all the tribes around them were socially flexible, women were higher in status (Jezebel for example, and the people of Nod who let one of their women take Cain in after he'd murdered his brother) and those slightly more lassez-faire mores were pretty attractive to the desert folk. The OT is chock full of warnings imprecations and see-I-told-you-so's regarding those disgusting practices. Yahweh acts like a frustrated overbearing daddy trying to get his family back under his thumb.

How about this: post-tribal-evolutionary-gay-hating manifests itself in people that still see the world as tribal. Small bands of Us vs. Them. And manifests as suspicion, not murder. And there's some evolutionary part that I haven't figured out yet, because I need a grant.

Well, of course suspicion, that's a big part of any phobia. And of course homophobic men see it as a them vs us matter. For straight men, the whole world is about them-- if a guy is gay he's gay for Mr. Straight. If a woman is a lesbian, Mr Straight is angry because she's turning him down. And of course tribal-- humans are, still, tribal in nature. Many of us a far more comfortable in a tribe-- gangs, social clubs, fraterneties, leather groups-- and we will go to great lengths to maintain a sense of tribal belonging.

I'm sorry. Europeans eat French Fries with mayo. Except for the Greeks.

Eating french fries with mayo is a small price to pay, IMO, for a little less paranoia in a queer life.

(I don't have much sense of humor when it comes to the potential for being bashed, you might notice)

You could make that argument, and there's an intuitive appeal to it. So all the persecution of gays through eons of history has zero evolutionary component, and actually, in this case and in Netz's, is in spite of a biological predisposition in favor of gays? Damn. We must really hate us some queers, then.

There's not much evidence that gays were persecuted through eons of history. There is certainly documented distaste for gayness in individual writings, but the ways in which that distaste have impacted gay men vary quite widely. In many cultures homophobia has been shrugged at-- "well, what can you do? You'll just have to be disgusted." kind of reaction. This extreme persecution is, primarily, a Xtian artifact.

 

[DeepGreenEyes]

The Hebrew tribe were modern man, evolutionarily speaking. If homophobia were an evolved trait, it would have manifested looong before the OT times.

The Hebrew nastiness towards homosexuality was, indeed, a response to the fear of being wiped out, IMO-- all the tribes around them were socially flexible, women were higher in status (Jezebel for example, and the people of Nod who let one of their women take Cain in after he'd murdered his brother) and those slightly more lassez-faire mores were pretty attractive to the desert folk. The OT is chock full of warnings imprecations and see-I-told-you-so's regarding those disgusting practices. Yahweh acts like a frustrated overbearing daddy trying to get his family back under his thumb. Well, of course suspicion, that's a big part of any phobia. And of course homophobic men see it as a them vs us matter. For straight men, the whole world is about them-- if a guy is gay he's gay for Mr. Straight. If a woman is a lesbian, Mr Straight is angry because she's turning him down. And of course tribal-- humans are, still, tribal in nature. Many of us a far more comfortable in a tribe-- gangs, social clubs, fraterneties, leather groups-- and we will go to great lengths to maintain a sense of tribal belonging. Eating french fries with mayo is a small price to pay, IMO, for a little less paranoia in a queer life.

(I don't have much sense of humor when it comes to the potential for being bashed, you might notice) There's not much evidence that gays were persecuted through eons of history. There is certainly documented distaste for gayness in individual writings, but the ways in which that distaste have impacted gay men vary quite widely. In many cultures homophobia has been shrugged at-- "well, what can you do? You'll just have to be disgusted." kind of reaction. This extreme persecution is, primarily, a Xtian artifact.

Hey! I think it's time for Family Guy!

 

[Homburg]

The Hebrew tribe were modern man, evolutionarily speaking. If homophobia were an evolved trait, it would have manifested looong before the OT times.

The Hebrew nastiness towards homosexuality was, indeed, a response to the fear of being wiped out, IMO-- all the tribes around them were socially flexible, women were higher in status (Jezebel for example, and the people of Nod who let one of their women take Cain in after he'd murdered his brother) and those slightly more lassez-faire mores were pretty attractive to the desert folk. The OT is chock full of warnings imprecations and see-I-told-you-so's regarding those disgusting practices. Yahweh acts like a frustrated overbearing daddy trying to get his family back under his thumb.

I have some vague memory of OT being almost uncaring about women laying with women, but was a wee bit harsh on men laying with men. I could be wrong though. I'll ask MIS. She's much more up on OT stuff.

Well, of course suspicion, that's a big part of any phobia. And of course homophobic men see it as a them vs us matter. For straight men, the whole world is about them-- if a guy is gay he's gay for Mr. Straight. If a woman is a lesbian, Mr Straight is angry because she's turning him down. And of course tribal-- humans are, still, tribal in nature. Many of us a far more comfortable in a tribe-- gangs, social clubs, fraterneties, leather groups-- and we will go to great lengths to maintain a sense of tribal belonging.

So for a coupla years now, the only club I frequent with any kind of consistency is a local gay club. Two nights a week they go pansexual, and one of those nights is a goth-industrial. I dig the music and I find goth girls to be my favourite brand of eye-candy. The club is also clean, well-maintained, and the staff genuinely rocks. So to the gay bar I go.

Well, pansexual night or not, there are loads of gay men there. If I'm not there with MIS (in goth girl mode, rawr), I go with my buddy AP. I'm a burly, manly type, and express it pretty plainly, and AP is even more macho. Eeeevery once in a while, one of the gay men will decide that one of us is hot and will come over. It happens rarely, as apparently we both ping all kinds of straight on the gaydar, but AP and I react the same way - "Oh, hey, sorry bro, but I don't swing that way. You still wanna play pool though?"

Gay man, straight woman, T-girl, or whatever, I am flattered. Another human finds me intriguing enough to overcome societal fears and anxiety to walk over and talk to me? Shit, I'm doing something right.

There's not much evidence that gays were persecuted through eons of history. There is certainly documented distaste for gayness in individual writings, but the ways in which that distaste have impacted gay men vary quite widely. In many cultures homophobia has been shrugged at-- "well, what can you do? You'll just have to be disgusted." kind of reaction. This extreme persecution is, primarily, a Xtian artifact.

The things the Christians did to gays in the Middle Ages were terrifying. To call them "barbaric" would be an insult to actual barbaric cultures. And there are those today that would continue the same behaviour if allowed.

My current hope is that DADT goes away. The military has often been at the forefront of cultural change due to forced integration in service. I'd like to see it happen here as well.

 

[JMohegan]

Since this is the internet and things are typed, it does make it easy to interpret things improperly, so please realize that this isn't meant as a personal attack.

There has been quite a bit of talk in this thread about homophobia, guys wigging out at the prospect of taking it up the butt, etc. But wouldn't this fall into the category of a reverse of the homophobic? I have no idea what the term would be.

But if somebody has a fear/dislike/irrational run for the hills reaction, regardless if it is based on personal experience or being brought up without running water or he saw his dad dressed up like Maude as a kid, he is labelled (or so it seems) as homophobic.

Is it any more correct or acceptable for a member of the not-straight community to make a statement like the one above?

If I professed to be of the homogenized straight guy community and said, "I do tend to expect the worst from gay men, and for that I.. ..well, I kinda don't apologise for that either", would I be lambasted for it?

Again, I am trying to see the logic behind this. I grew up exploring the streets of New Hope and Provincetown, and was called many nasty things when people saw me holding hands with a woman. I was asked to leave a store in Provincetown for kissing her in public. I don't see how people can comment about mistreatment and yet not comment about things like this.

There is a middle ground, I think, that takes the abuse from both sides in any discussion like this. People that say, 'If you want to march in a parade, go right ahead. I won't march, but that is because I don't march in anybody's parade. I don't lump you into any category due to race or religion or sexual preference or sexual wiring or wether you hug trees or oil derricks or anything else, but in return I expect you to do the same for me. Judge me for who I am, not whatever category you put me into."


Fuck.

Sorry, Stella. Not really a personal thing; yours was nothing more than a single straw. But I have seen this crap from a lot of different angles in the past four years; white/black, gay/straight, liberal/conservative, and I would really like some answers.




Probably should post this to rants.

My answer to your first bolded question is a qualified no. My answer to the second is yes of course, and rightfully so.

The term I think you are looking for is reverse bigotry.

Obviously, no bigotry is good. But personally, I find some forms more understandable than others. Bigotry from members of a majority group toward members of a minority? That's tough for me to understand, and nearly impossible to excuse.

Bigotry from a member of an oppressed minority toward members of the majority group? It's never pleasant, and certainly not helping to achieve mutual understanding, or garner support for any causes. When people hear "you're a sexist/racist/homophobic/anti-semitic asshole, blah blah blah" - they usually stop listening after asshole. Nevertheless, indiscriminate lashing out in bitterness or anger may be understandable, up to a point.

And then there's often an issue of math that's hard to ignore. When a state like California votes to deny homosexuals' marriage rights, what the fuck are gay people supposed to conclude about prevailing attitudes? If the baseline assumption is that straight people are hostile to them, that's obviously incorrect in every case - and offensive when wrongfully applied. But as a matter of probability, it's tough to argue that they're not right.

 

[Netzach]

Again, I am trying to see the logic behind this. I grew up exploring the streets of New Hope and Provincetown, and was called many nasty things when people saw me holding hands with a woman. I was asked to leave a store in Provincetown for kissing her in public. I don't see how people can comment about mistreatment and yet not comment about things like this.

I'm sorry, I don't even have a problem with what happened to you in Ptown - I think it's asshole but I understand why queer people would be like "this fucking flyspeck of the map is ours. You get 99.99999 percent of the map." My partner is visually male - and I definitely have gotten a few looks with him in a queer context. I have a lot of patience with that, as long as I don't get the impression it's general misogyny. I don't opt to do PDA's in that context with him. It's awkward, and until his gender should ever become more visually apparent, I can do PDA's with him every other effing place in town, so I realize that privilege at this point.

You got someone asking you to leave a store? Yep, that's wrong and asshole of them, now you have experienced 1/100000000th of what the people who asked you to leave have experienced.

You don't have to look around to see if you're going to get beaten and raped for kissing her every time you do. You don't have the whole town threatening you when you are a teen because you want to go to your own prom. You don't have to read about another person like your spouse being killed, denied emergency treatment, or denied work with no federal protection every.single.day.

You want to create equivalency where there isn't.

It's been pretty clearly rubbed in everyone's face that a private entity gets to do what it wants - if the BSA can be like they are, some boutique in ptown can be "breeder kisses outside." You simply don't have to shop there.

 

[Homburg]

It's been pretty clearly rubbed in everyone's face that a private entity gets to do what it wants - if the BSA can be like they are, some boutique in ptown can be "breeder kisses outside." You simply don't have to shop there.

The BSA thing really rubs me the wrong way. My son is in the cub scouts, and I won't tell him not to do it, but I won't take part in leadership or organisation until attitudes change.

 

[Seurat]

Questions, comparisons, and examples removed.

 

[Stella_Omega]

yanno, I had about seven hundred words of explanation, invective and ripping you a new one, all written out ready to post-- but then I thought...

fuck it, why bother?

How old are you, Seurat?

Are you worth the dialogue?

Do you think there's anything you need to learn?

Are you a libertarian?

 

[satindesire]

Wow, wtf Stella?!

 

[Stella_Omega]

Wow, wtf Stella?!

The dude compares bigotry/racism/misogyny/homohatred...

to shoe size.

he compares his personal experience with personal malice, in one store in one town...

to the collective experiences of an entire minority group that has been victim to oppression, injustice, and hatred for hundreds of years.

He expects angry people to stop and reassure him that they bear him no ill will-- while at the same time, telling them that they have to fight their battles without his help because he's beyond that-- as if his reasons made any difference.

Those are the obvious ones.

for a guy who resents me saying that I expect not much from straight guys, he sure has fulfilled my expectations of not much.

 

[Seurat]

yanno, I had about seven hundred words of explanation, invective and ripping you a new one, all written out ready to post-- but then I thought...

fuck it, why bother?

Me too, only without the 'ripping you a new one part'.

I retract my questions.