Gay Q&A Pt 2

[KDLMAJERE]

I'll paste a few previous posts. If you wanna follow up, feel free. If you find something in the Gay Q&A to talk about, but are running into people who can't handle it, feel free to take it here. This is just a space to discuss sexuality issues. Where you can go with the conversation, wherever it takes you. Use it or don't ;)

[KDLMAJERE]

Note I never said culture is not a fact. However, culture may affect outward things, but, from a genetic standpoint, would take damn near forever to change genetics. Culture is on an order of thousands of years, changes in genes are on the order of millions of years, a factor of 4. One can reasonably argue that our genes are virtually unchanged from the time of Socrates, but I'd say culture has changed vastly (ironically, homosexuality was far more common and accepted back then, before the advent of the Church). Thus, to say culture trumps biology - sure. But genetics? Not so much.

As to the culture concept of otherness vs. hierarchy, the point of it all is that man will always feel hostile towards that which is not like him. That's true through the animal world, that's true through the human world. And the further from himself that something is, the more hostile he will be from it. That's the limbic, crocodile brain, part of ourselves speaking. Our cortex and its functions can reason and make it so that we can override the thought process of the limbic region, but it's still there in the subconscious. It cannot be changed.

For example, I'm left handed. A scant 1,000 years ago, left handed people were considered the spawn of the devil, by culture. It was only when left handed people became more common, and thus, "closer to the mainstream" that they were accepted as normal, functioning human beings. "Closer to the mainstream" is not necessarily a bad thing, it is merely the result of studying.

As for your last point, one of our closest genetic relatives, the Bonobo chimp of central Africa, have been studied and shown to display relatively frequent homosexuality. One could argue that the chimp society is pretty analogous to our society, minus the more rigid forms of culture. Because they (and all animals) lack a specific culture, though, does not mean we are not animals, and don't develop like animals.

I really dislike the tenets of culturism. To me, it's just another form of racism, subtler, yet just as damaging.

-TheE-

[KDLMAJERE]

>Thus, to say culture trumps biology - sure. But genetics? Not so much.

In the context of sexuality. There is no gay gene. There has never been a gay gene identified (since the 1992 study by the National Institute for Cancer Research, which was almost immediately discredited). In fact, any biologically based study you read now will have a section stating the unlikely chances of finding such a gene.

As to the mutability of genetics, you're right that culture isn't going to suddenly create a new gene half way through your life. But, as I pointed out before, any geneticist will tell you that genes express or de-express themselves according to environment. And during a lifetime, a single gene may go from dormant, to active, to dormant again. All of this based on environment, which is basically culture.

And, let's go back to sexuality. You made a good point, since Socrates our genes are pretty much the same. Very little change at all. And yet, the changes in sexuality and sexual desire are IMMENSE. HUGE. If it were based on these genes that haven't really changed, I fail to see how we could have such an amazing range of sexual expressions that have been considered completely normal and natural over time and space. Remember that every generation has looked at the sexual practices around it and said "This is normal, this is natural" (not to say that moments of crisis haven't occured where people changed their minds). We're not different than any other generation in that regard. But we're looking at an entirely different sexual system, and yet we're still claiming it's "normal" and "natural", that every other sexual system was somehow culturally construed whereas ours isn't.

>man will always feel hostile towards that which is not like him

Or woman, her, right? *cough* This is hardly the case. The nation's elites are very different from myself, I recognize that they are "other" in relation to me, but I do not feel hostile towards them per se. In fact, I very much look up to many of them. As an individual, I've spent time studying other cultures. They are "other" to me, but I am not hostile towards them. The potential for hostility is always there, but where and when (if at all) it gets expressed is completely up to cultural and individual context. Heterosexual people are "others" compared to me, but I feel no hostility towards them. The whole notion of what is "other" is culturally construed, and as I pointed out earlier, the differentiation between acceptable and unacceptable other is subjective, a product of culture and not biology. There's a sexual range that is acceptable by the mainstream, the differences between practices in that range are real, but they're not cause for hostility. So it's not about simply being "Other" or "different", there's something else going on there. And it's not about "human nature".

>>As for your last point, one of our closest genetic relatives, the Bonobo chimp of central Africa, have been studied and shown to display relatively frequent homosexuality. One could argue that the chimp society is pretty analogous to our society, minus the more rigid forms of culture.

I'm aware of the example you're citing, it's a favorite in these discussions. Let's take two human cultures that exist right now in the same time though different space. Same species. We'll take the US heterosexual male subject and then the northern Trobriand Islander male subject (they don't have a concept of heterosexual, so we can't call them that). The US male subject has exclusive sexual attraction to women and (in theory) only engages in sexual activity with the woman he is involved with (specifically marriage). The idea of engaging in a sexual act with a child, specifically his own, is likely repulsive in every way to him.

The Trobriand Islander man has sexual attraction to women and his own son, but no other men. He engages (in theory) exclusively in sexual acts with the woman he is involved with (we would label it as marriage) and his sons. This man has sexual attraction to his son because it's expected of him in his society to have sex with his son a number of times in order to make him a man, it's a coming of age thing.

Now these are two people in the same species with RADIACALLY different sexual desires and practices. My point is that you can't even make a claim about "human" sexuality, you can't even compare two people in different geographies. How can you even begin to compare two different species? You point out the Bonobo Chimp, but if you look at a few other primates you'll find a huge range: some species display no same-sex behavior, some species display only famale same-sex behavior, and some display only male same-sex behavior. To pick one of those out and say "See? We're very similar" is to ignore the other species where we're not similar at all. It's selectively reading things, taking certain bits of evidence and leaving others out. In reality, there's no continuity. Each species has different manifestations of same-sex behavior (some have none), and WITHIN the same species you have a range of expressions that may contradict and conflict with each other. What's different? It's not the biology.

>I really dislike the tenets of culturism. To me, it's just another form of racism, subtler, yet just as damaging.

This is an ironic statement. Racism, homophobia, and mysogeny have ALL found their legitimization in biological arguments. The late 1800's and early 1900's are littered with what is referred to as scientific racism (in fact, this is how modern biology's dealings with humans got started). It was the biologists and mental health professionals that came up with the racial categories that we use today (and who claimed from the beginning to have proof that people with certain skin colors had lower intelligence, etc) and the terms like "invert" and "pervert" that were the first referrences to what would later be called the "homosexual". People in cultural studies were the first to say that race was socially negotiated, that heterosexuality wasn't better than homosexuality, and that gender roles had no biological base, but rather were arbitrary cultural constructions.

[KDLMAJERE]

So the major questions so far have been:

Are we born gay or straight?
Does biology determine who we are sexually, or is it culture?
Is it wrong to call someone queenie? Are gay guys who act that way just putting on a fake act?

But hey, talk about whatever you want. Everyone's got questions. No PC boundaries. Just respect everyone's questions and answers. And no personal attacks, keep it to the material champs!

[HarmNone]

I think you will find, KDL, that when one is pedantic in their posting style the only answers they receive will be from others who rather enjoy posting in the same manner. What results is a war of the pedagogues. Usually, nobody learns anything. ;)

HarmNone

[TheEschaton]

One point before I retire for an afternoon nap:


And yet, the changes in sexuality and sexual desire are IMMENSE. HUGE. If it were based on these genes that haven't really changed, I fail to see how we could have such an amazing range of sexual expressions that have been considered completely normal and natural over time and space. Remember that every generation has looked at the sexual practices around it and said "This is normal, this is natural" (not to say that moments of crisis haven't occured where people changed their minds). We're not different than any other generation in that regard. But we're looking at an entirely different sexual system, and yet we're still claiming it's "normal" and "natural", that every other sexual system was somehow culturally construed whereas ours isn't.

I would say sexuality hasn't changed, in that the same sexuality was always occuring, it was merely accepted at different levels at different times. To me, what you're saying is that during Socrates time, homosexual sex occured, and thus, there was such a thing as homosexuality. In the Dark Ages, when homosexuality was NOT accepted - homosexuality did not exist. And now, it exists again. In reality, homosexual behavior was prevalent throughout, but just tolerated in different levels (through culture). Likewise, incest still occurs in the United States, though not tolerated. In 100 years, if sleeping with your son is accepted, it doesn't mean the practice of "incest" suddenly sprung up - it's always been there, just not acknowledged. Thus, culture doesn't trump the biology of the thing, that it's been happening.

Maybe we're getting the definitions confused, having different ones, etc. The human sexuality I know of is based on a few things: Gender (physical vs genetic, which can be different), gender role, and sexual orientation. The various types of gender, and the various types of sexual orientations have always been prevalent - it is the gender roles which have been changing as per culture.

Thus, I have a physical/genetic gender of male, I am sexually oriented towards heterosexuality, and my gender role...well, that's a bit ambiguous, since after all, I have long hair. ;)

-TheE-

[KDLMAJERE]

>I think you will find, KDL, that when one is pedantic in their posting style the only answers they receive will be from others who rather enjoy posting in the same manner.

Sometimes, sometimes not. I think that what it comes down to is whether or not people *are* actually there to learn. If you're there to learn and to share opinions, you won't have a problem reading a few paragraphs that deal with subjects in more than just a cursory manner. If you're just there to yap and toss out half-baked ideas, but not to really challenge yourself and others to think reconsider their fundamental assumptions...yeah, this kind of posting won't do a thing for you. Then again, maybe that's not such a bad thing.

Besides, anyone can throw out any number of posts and threads in this section. No one's saying everyone has to be conversing with everyone else. You can have simultaneous discussions going on in one folder.

[KDLMAJERE]

>Maybe we're getting the definitions confused, having different ones, etc.

I think you're coming close to hitting the core of the disagreement. Same-sex desire and same-sex behavior are NOT the same thing as homosexuality. Sexual behavior amongst people that are genetically related is NOT the same thing as incest. Homosexuality and incest are cultural concepts.

Homosexuality itself refers to exclusive same-sex desire and behaviors, it takes for granted a continuity between the two. When we look at other people in other cultures or other time periods (or both) and label someone as homosexual, we're making an ahistorical judgement. We're introducing a culturally and chronologically specific idea (exclusive same-sex behavior, which presumes same-sex desire, which presumes a subject with that was 'born' with such desires) into a population that has no conception of this. It wasn't until the late 1800's in Western Society that a person with same-sex behavior and desires was considered to be another sexual species. The homosexual has not existed throughout time, it was constructed in this period, as was the heterosexual. Now, did same-sex behavior and desires exist? Of course. But the Greek Aristocrat who desired to penetrate young boys but who still had a wife and had sexual intercourse with her was NOT a homosexual (or even a bisexual). They were something entirely different. The Northern Trobriand Islander who sleeps with his wife but also his son (and only his son, and only when his son is about 13) is NOT a homosexual or a bisexual. Those terms, those entire ideas don't describe what's going on here.

The point is that when we look back through time and point to the historicity of homosexuality, we're not discovering a link between today's queer subject and the queer subject of centures ago, we're *creating* that link.

We have to remember to disassociate same-sex behavior and homosexuality, because they're two different things.

>The various types of gender, and the various types of sexual orientations have always been prevalent - it is the gender roles which have been changing as per culture.

Gender has been far from static in its inception. Western notions of gender have been fairly static (in the sense that it is based on a binary system), but in other parts of the world we've seen huge changes. In India a few centuries ago a third gender 'sprung up', the Hijdra (spelling), and it exists still today. Many Native American societies had 3-5 genders until colonization came in and forced them into a two gender system (OUR two gender system). There are multiple examples of this around the world. Gender systems have ranged from 2-5 genders, and sex chromosomes have always come in 5 combinations...a far cry from modern Western notions on sex and gender. When we look around the world and point to the universality of the gender binary system, two things are going on:
1. We're projecting our own system onto other cultures. As in the case of India, we completely ignore the existence of other genders and still point to these cultures insisting that there is a two gender system
2. We point to our own handy work. The partial or full subjugation of other cultures to Western cultures has been ongoing. Many societies today that have the two gender system (which we point to as proof of the universality of that system) had that system forced upon them by Western influence (colonization, economic imperialism, etc)

It's a circular reasoning and logic that we use. Also, I'd challenge everyone to remember that Male and Female are not the same thing as penis and vagina. And also that penis and vagina don't automatically correlate to Male or Female. They're two different things that have a link because of our cultural understanding of them. But disarticulating that link is important to understanding that these systems are not transhistorical or transgeographical.

[TheEschaton]

Your argument would say we could only speak about the present, the now, since culture is constantly changing.


That, is a fallacy. As I understand it, when I say homosexuality, I mean persons adhering to homosexual behaviors, I don't mean the current socially-constructed definition of queer people. Homosexuality is (or at least should be) a behavioral reference, not a socio-cultural one.

-TheE-

[KDLMAJERE]

>That, is a fallacy. As I understand it, when I say homosexuality, I mean persons adhering to homosexual behaviors, I don't mean the current socially-constructed definition of queer people. Homosexuality is (or at least should be) a behavioral reference, not a socio-cultural one.

Neither homosexuality nor heterosexuality are behavioral references. They're social definitions that *include* behavior criteria, but they're not limited to them.

For instance: a man who is married and has four children but who has had sex with men on five different occasions in their life isn't a homosexual. Especially if they don't identify as a homosexual.

A man in pre-colonized latin america who penetrates other men on occasion, but who dates women and will one day marry one is not a homosexual, nor even a bisexual. They wouldn't identify as such (the term would be maricone, not gay). They penetrate, therefore they are macho (or straight). But they would consider the men that they penetrate on occasion to be maricones (which we would translate as gay), which is different from how they see themselves.

The married man with no previous sexual history or desire for other men, but who has found himself a steady lover after 10 years in prison is not a homosexual. They may be engaging in same-sex behaviors, and they may have developed same-sex desires, but that isn't the same thing as being a homosexual (because being a homosexual implies all kinds of cultural assumptions about desire and personhood that this person doesn't share)

To call these three men homosexual would be a mislabel. Because they're not homosexuals. Homosexuals are Western European, modern (I hate using that term), and engage in exclusively same-sex acts based on exclusive same-sex desires. These three people are all different sexual species, so to speak. The only consistency between them is same-sex behavior, but even then...the kinds of same-sex behavior, the frequency, and opposite-sex behavior is all radically different. If we look at these three men and say that they're all one queer species, it's all in our head. We're making a number of connections and assumptions that just aren't valid.

[KDLMAJERE]

On this subject, there's a very famous article by John D'Emilio on the connections between the gay subject and the rise of capitalism. It's fairly universally accepted at this point, and it's definitely worth the read (and it's not impossible to understand). He's a historian, so his writing has less jargon.

[Ravenstorm]

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality/

Part three is about queer theory and social construction of sexuality. It seems to be a decent summary and holds some interesting points.

Raven

[KDLMAJERE]

Man, five years at this school, and I never saw that website. I'll read through it when I have a chance, maybe I'll learn something new.

[Ravenstorm]

While you're at it...

As I was reading up on the subject last night, I came across this essay:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/thorp.html

Now, if I am understanding the subject of social construction correctly, one of the specifics points it makes is that homosexuality as we define it today, did not exist in the past. That the Greeks' beliefs about same sex behavior was radically different.

Now, there's certainly an element of accuracy in that statement. And certainly, many things MUST be taken in a cultural context to be accurately understood. However, that essay makes note of specific instances that directly contradict that theory: that homosexuality as we definie it today most certainly did exist - among the other patterns of sexuality - back then. Specifically look about midway down the page re the mention of Aristophanes. I'll quote part:


The males who desire males do not just want to copulate with them, but to spend their lives with them (192c); they marry and have children only in deference to the usage of society (*u'po\ tou^ no/mou a'nagka/zontai*, 192b). The second point is that Aristophanes explicitly says that the sexual pleasure cannot explain the desire of these males to be together; their souls are longing for something else which they cannot name (192d). Far from being a superficial point of taste, the homosexual desire and activity is an expression of something which lies deep in the soul -- so deep that its nature is altogether unclear.

The author of the essay then comcludes later on:


Of course, it may still be the case that homosexuality is a social construct: but if so it is striking that the Greeks and we have constructed it so similarly.

Now, this isn't at all my field and one day of research certainly does not make me an expert. So the point of all this is for clarification. Personally, while I think there might be some truth to the theory, I don't buy it in its entirety (based on my whopping 1 days research!).

Nor do I think it rules out a genetic factor being involved. I'm not saying genetics is the sole determining factor by any means but neither does social construction answer all questions.

Raven

[KDLMAJERE]

>that homosexuality as we definie it today most certainly did exist - among the other patterns of sexuality - back then. Specifically look about midway down the page re the mention of Aristophanes. I'll quote part:

Again, it's important to remember that same-sex behavior and homosexuality are two different concepts. In the Greek instance, for example, it was expected that all adult men of a particular class would be attracted to younger men (not older men, a man would never have sex with someone who wasn't a boy, and a boy would never have sex with someone who wasn't a man). This is very different from homosexuality in a variety of ways. For one, it was limited to particular class and age groups. There wasn't an assumption that if you were attracted to one man, you could be attracted to all men. If you broke the class/age lines, you would be severely reprimanded. For another, there was no separate sexual species that was attracted to men. There wasn't a different word for these men that separated them from men in other classes who didn't engage in same-sex behavior. The queer subject in our society is different than the heterosexual subject, we consider it to be some fundamental different, they are in effect two different kinds of people. The people who engaged in same-sex behavior in the ancient Greek system weren't a different kind of person for their same-sex behavior.

What social constructionists point out is that various kinds of same-sex behavior have existed, they have had VERY different rules and regulations and have meant VERY different things to different people at different times. It'd be like arguing that US cuisine has existed everywhere in the world at all times because everyone uses or has used eggs. There's a big difference between that single ingredient and the eating habits and cuisines that utilized it.

>Nor do I think it rules out a genetic factor being involved.

It doesn't necessarily rule out genetics. Social construction itself isn't contested, it's accepted as fact in the same way that evolution is accepted as fact. What is contested where biology ends and it begins, whether biology and culture are even useful categories, and how the process of social construction actually works.

[KDLMAJERE]

>It doesn't necessarily rule out genetics.

Hey, forgot to add....I think it does rule out genetics in every significant way. But believing in social construction doesn't mean that you have to take it to the level I, and many other people, take it to.

[Ravenstorm]

Except that passage from Aristophanes /does/ seem to imply that there were a group of men who engaged in same-sex behavior regardless of age and social expectations. Or, as you put it a 'separate sexual species that was attracted to men'. Now, I can only take the word of the author of that second piece but I can assume he's done a decent amount of research. I'm not thrilled at taking his word for it but it's his field, not mine. I suggest you read the entire essay at leisure where he specifically says that such relationships existed and were indeed frowned upon.

Perhaps tomorrow I'll look more directly into Aristophanes.

Raven

Edited to add:

Oh, and while it's by no means conclusive, and purely circumstancial, based on translation, the Sacred Band of Thebes has been described as consisting of 300 young men. Not young and old.

[Edited on 4-7-2004 by Ravenstorm]

[KDLMAJERE]

>I suggest you read the entire essay at leisure where he specifically says that such relationships existed and were indeed frowned upon.

I've read quite a bit about this actually. There are a lot of points that are still in contention, granted. For instance, some people argue that there was a general sense of revile at the same-sex relationships of the aristocracy by the peasant and slave classes, while others argue that it was simply understood as something those rich folk did.

But what the research is clear on is that this set of behaviors was generally acceptable only in the upper echelons of the social strata (and even then, it depended on georgraphy and chronology...the behavior was sometimes openly accepted and other times just tolerated). The lower classes didn't engage in this kind of behavior or buy into the idea that the only pure love was between a man and a boy. That's not to say that it didn't ever happen on an individual basis in other classes (just like not every rich person indulged in the behavior), but on the whole it wasn't part of their sexual system.

I guess a side note would be important here. The religious classes had a different way of dealing with same-sex sexuality. Pederasty (temple prostitution) was common in many temples, and often times it was same-sex in nature. Of course, the vast majority of people who indulged in pederasty were young men (the prostitutes) and wealthy older men (the customers), but in this particular space the class distinctions were less stringent. As always, indulging in same-sex prostitution in these places didn't make you a separate kind of person, a different sexual species, any more than going to a baseball came occasionally makes us a different species today.

>Except that passage from Aristophanes /does/ seem to imply that there were a group of men who engaged in same-sex behavior regardless of age and social expectations

I don't think the author was saying that at all. In fact, he made it a point to demonstrate that the exclusive coupling of two men who didn't follow class/age boundaries was of questionable moral character. What particular passage did you read that implied it?


Also, while Aristophanes is quoted often (and for a long time was taken as the truthspeaker of ancient greek same-sex behavior), he was only one voice among many. More research has been done, and basically Aristophanes's claim about three genders and about the idealism of a relationship between two men were exactly that...his claims. They enjoyed no universal acceptance. They were provacative ideas at the time, and some people took them up (actually, no one ever went with the three gender idea, just with the only pure love being between man and boy), but most people didn't. Interestingly enough, when he wrote the Symposium, it was at a day and age when these same-sex relationships were starting to be looked upon with disdain and alarm by the upper-classes. It had become like masturbation....everyone did it, but no one talked about it (except for crazy academics)

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by KDLMAJERE
>Except that passage from Aristophanes /does/ seem to imply that there were a group of men who engaged in same-sex behavior regardless of age and social expectations

I don't think the author was saying that at all. In fact, he made it a point to demonstrate that the exclusive coupling of two men who didn't follow class/age boundaries was of questionable moral character.

I'm not saying that it wasn't considered of questionable moral character. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't one of the main points of social construction of sexuality that our definition of homosexuals was 'constructed' only recently?

And yet, here is Aristophanes describing what sounds exactly like what we consider homosexuals to be: two men, engaged in same sex behavior not only in the accepted social normal but outside it. Two men, regardless of age, wanting to live together, not marry or have children, and spend their lives together. That sounds exactly like our definition of gay men.

And note the edit to my above post re: the Sacred Band of Thebes which may have been added while you were replying.

Raven

[KDLMAJERE]

>Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't one of the main points of social construction of sexuality that our definition of homosexuals was 'constructed' only recently?

Yes. Correct. Also that the very sexual desires as overarching sexual system is a product of discursive construction, not an innate drive.

What was being described in the piece was meant to be an anomaly. The author's intention was to show an example that looks like our modern-day homosexual that really wasn't. That kind of relationship was unheard of. It wasn't socially acceptable, and it wasn't even on anyone's radar. Also, this relationship was seen as a behavioral issue, not an example of a new type of person. Two men who engaged in that kind of a relationship were being immoral, they were behaving badly, but they weren't running off of some innate desire within them that drove them to have that kind of coupling. On the contrary, they were engaging in an act against the order of things.

The modern homosexual who engages in this kind of behavior is considered to be acting on innate sexual desire that comes from within. They're acting in according to their being. They're not simply engaging in an odd behavior as in the Greek example (and in this day and age, it's not considered to be odd at all by the maintream...sometimes immoral but not odd), they're a certain type of person that engages in these behaviors, it's 'normal' for them.

The birth of the homosexual was the move from the sodomite (who was a regular person who engaged in irregular acts) to the queer subject (who was a different kind of person who fundamentally was meant to engage in these behaviors because of an intrinsic desire, someone who was somehow fundamentally and basically different than the other new creation...the heterosexual)

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by KDLMAJERE
What was being described in the piece was meant to be an anomaly. The author's intention was to show an example that looks like our modern-day homosexual that really wasn't. That kind of relationship was unheard of. It wasn't socially acceptable, and it wasn't even on anyone's radar. Also, this relationship was seen as a behavioral issue, not an example of a new type of person.

Okay, I think I understand now. And I think it's bull. If the only difference is how society at the time regarded it? I don't care. The behavior is the same. Whether it was considered an anomaly then is irrelevant. And obviously, it was on at least one person's radar as it was described quite clearly. Aristophanes describes /gay behavior/ and mentions by name two /gay men/. Whatever they called it or thought of it back then does not change what it was.

And what it was seems to be an exact duplicate of homosexual behavior as it is defined today. If the behavior is the same the name is irrelevant as is whether it was considered deviant behavior.

I really can't see how you can possibly say that it didn't exist back then.

Raven

[KDLMAJERE]

>Okay, I think I understand now. And I think it's bull.
Haha, fair enough. Let me give it another shot.

>If the only difference is how society at the time regarded it? I don't care. The behavior is the same.

Interesting statement. Sexuality for us isn't about behavior. One can be heterosexual or homosexual before having ever engaged in any sex acts. This is a whole new development, it used to be that one was labeled only after they engaged in a sex act. Sodomy was an *action*, the sodomite was someone who engaged in those actions. The sodomite didn't exist outside of those actions. Now, the homosexual can exist independently of those actions. One is homosexual for having certain desires, not for engaging in certain actions.

The homosexual today can transcend racial, class, gender, geographical, etc lines. We're fond of saying "queer people are everywhere!" That wasn't the case in Greece. First, same-sex desire (which was not the same thing as a sexuality) was only recognized and produced in a particular gender, in a particular class, and only in particular relationships. That desire was only constructed in very specific circumstances. In essence, these desires were used to construct political subjects. This is how a male in certain classes performed their identity as wealthy, powerful, and masculine. It was the connections between power, masculinity, and penetration that constructed the desire to penetrate less powerful subjects (young boys). And that desire manifested as sexual desire. Why? Because penetration is a pleasurable act, that's the biology part of it. The cultural part of it tells you when it's acceptable to penetrate and to desire a situation that involves penetration.

A man in the lower classes would not have felt the same way. There would have been no desire to penetrate young boys (Barring some extraneous psychological/sociological factors that were specific to the individual) because in their socialization, that act of penetration wouldn't construct themselves as a political subject. They were lower classes, they didn't need (and weren't allowed...restricted by both themselves and others) to perform their dominance...because they didn't have any. So no desire for the act, and consequently for the object of the act, developed.

When we're talking about homosexuality in the US right now, it's a whole different ball game. Penetrating another man does not construct masculinity. It doesn't make you more of a man or more powerful (On the contrary, it makes you less powerful and less masculine), so there's a revulsion towards the act, and hence the object. (this is ignoring the top/bottom butch/femme power players that happen between people who have same-sex desires). Of course, with the infinite combinations of affecting discourses and the multitude of personal experiences out there, people will still construct same-sex desires in themselves from very young ages, but that desire isn't being constructed in the same way or for the same reasons as the ancient Greek aristocrat.

So even though both people may be engaging in same-sex acts and developing same-sex desires, they're two totally different ball games. (since I love food analogies...) It would be like saying that since I eat chicken for dinner because I need more protein, anyone else who ever eats chicken at any time must be doing it at dinner and explicitly for the protein. It's the same behavior, but it's not the same thing.

This is very different from most systems, very different from the Greek systerm.

[Tsa`ah]

Mostly skimmed so the only point of interest I will comment on is the genetic aspect.

You can't argue against genetic tendencies toward homosexuality using one disproved case study.

Much like the inability to mark a specific peptide sequence as the "homosexual gene" there also exists the inability to mark any other sequence as the "heterosexual" gene.

Lack of genetic findings does not dismiss a possible genetic link.

[KDLMAJERE]

>Much like the inability to mark a specific peptide sequence as the "homosexual gene" there also exists the inability to mark any other sequence as the "heterosexual" gene.

>Lack of genetic findings does not dismiss a possible genetic link.

Good point. Of course you're running under the assumption that there is indeed a heterosexual gene. In fact, there is neither a heterosexual nor homosexual gene, because these are recent constructions specific to our culture and this time period (neither term nor concept even existed before the 1890s).

When I pointed out that the Gay Gene study was flawed, I meant it as an example. I followed up with the fact that no single study has been able to find a gay gene, the search for a gay gene has almost come to an end (not to say that searched for biological links with homosexuality have ended, but they've pretty much dropped the gene search), and that all of the recent studies include passages about the unlikely possibility of there being a gene responsible for homosexuality.

Ultimately, it is difficult to imagine that there is a gene for a cultural construction, for a sexual system that is neither transhistorical nor transgeographical.

[TheEschaton]

I think it's just a way to make homosexuality a unique thing, when indeed, it is not.

This is like me saying, "Well, some Indians practiced Catholicism in the 1st century AD....but they had different views of Catholicism, and really, Catholicism has changed so much since then that I....I am a member of a unique Indian Catholicism." That's bull. There were Indian Catholics then, I'm merely one in a line of many.

Get over it: You're not special because you're gay. If you're gay because you want to be special, you're not gay (for the right reasons, at least).


-TheE-

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by KDLMAJERE
Sexuality for us isn't about behavior. One can be heterosexual or homosexual before having ever engaged in any sex acts.

Very true. And I said as much in answer to a question someone had asked. You then say:


That wasn't the case in Greece. First, same-sex desire (which was not the same thing as a sexuality) was only recognized and produced in a particular gender, in a particular class, and only in particular relationships. That desire was only constructed in very specific circumstances.

And yet it was the case in Greece. You seem to be totally ignoring the fact that according to Aristophanes, homosexuality existed back then. He described quite clearly two homosexual men. He named them. It transcended those specific circumstance age relations you speak of. Did it fall outside the bounds of accepted behavior? Yes. Was it looked on as being deviant? Sure.

If anything, you're making a good case that homosexual behavior existed back then and was considered quite close to how it's been considered up until recently. How it is /still/ considered by some people: deviant, aberation, outside acceptable behavior and boundaries.

A duck is a duck. A duck in ancient Greece is no different than a duck now. Maybe back then a duck might have been considered a sacred animal, the herald of Zeus, never to be eaten and always to be treated witht he utmost respect. Today, a duck makes a tasty meal with an orange sauce. It's been 'socially constructed' into dinner as opposed to a sacred animal. But the duck hasn't changed.

Aristophanes quite clearly describes homosexuals - same sex behavior accompanied by same sex desire - existing outside of accepted behavior in ancient Greece. What it was called by others, seen as by others, how it was judged by others? Irrelevant. The behavior, the desire, the actions are the same. Homosexual. You said:


One is homosexual for having certain desires, not for engaging in certain actions.

Exactly.

Raven

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by KDLMAJERE
In fact, there is neither a heterosexual nor homosexual gene, because these are recent constructions specific to our culture and this time periodDoes that mean there wasn't DNA before Watson and Crick?

[TheEschaton]

YOU GOT SERVED!


-TheE-

[KDLMAJERE]

> "Well, some Indians practiced Catholicism in the 1st century AD....but they had different views of Catholicism, and really, Catholicism has changed so much since then that I....I am a member of a unique Indian Catholicism." That's bull. There were Indian Catholics then, I'm merely one in a line of many.

Actually, it's like saying that modern Catholics had something in common with Native American spirituality because they both believed in some form of divinity. Cute, but very little parrallel.

And you're missing the flip side of things. One of the most powerful byproducts of recognizing the discursive construction of queer sexualities is recognizing the discursive construction of heterosexuality. It's *all* socially constructed. These things that we take for granted as natural and biological facts are actually cultural elaborations that work dilligently to naturalize themselves.

It's the same process we're going through with gender and race. The point of recognizing how they're socially constructed isn't to make one special or 'neat', but to destablize the systems that aribtrarily assign social status, material goods, and overall quality of life to certain skin colors, sex organs, and sexual desires. Once we demonstrate how aribtrary these categories are, we can start to dismantle that system of inequality.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by KDLMAJERE
> "Well, some Indians practiced Catholicism in the 1st century AD....but they had different views of Catholicism, and really, Catholicism has changed so much since then that I....I am a member of a unique Indian Catholicism." That's bull. There were Indian Catholics then, I'm merely one in a line of many.

Actually, it's like saying that modern Catholics had something in common with Native American spirituality because they both believed in some form of divinity. Cute, but very little parrallel.Uh, wrong Indians. I'm almost positive theEschaton is talking about the "from India" Indians. I know, I hate Columbus too.

[KDLMAJERE]

>Does that mean there wasn't DNA before Watson and Crick?

Erm, no...there wasn't homosexuality or heterosexuality before the late 1800's. I wasn't talking about genes. I've made this statement about homosexuality and heterosexuality so many times, I thought it would be pretty clear ;)

>Uh, wrong Indians. I'm almost positive theEschaton is talking about the "from India" Indians. I know, I hate Columbus too.

Doesn't really matter, the analogy still stands. Replace it with a different culture and set of religious beliefs, the message is the same. And yes, Columbus was the father of one of the worst cases of genocide in the history of our world.


>He described quite clearly two homosexual men

This is I think the point that is being missed here. He is describing a set of behaviors that you are INTERPRETING as homosexuality. These people would not have identified with the concept in the way that you and I know it. You're performing an identity onto them, creating a continuity yourself. Remember that history is a political construction of the present. A lot of gay and lesbian revisionist history has been under fire for doing precisely this...for taking their own culturally specific ideas about sexuality and gender and then describing the behaviors, ideas, and mythologies of other cultures and historical moments with them. It imposes the values and assumptions of the observer onto the observed. Consequently, it's a case of seeing what you want to see, not what was actually there.

One is homosexual for having certain desires, not for engaging in certain actions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



>Exactly.

I think you're misunderstanding the point again. When I say homosexuality, I'm referring to our cultural construct. The definition of homosexual is recent and culturally specific. WE view the homosexual as having certain desires, possessing the homosexual essence/soul/gene/etc. But what I've been trying to demonstrate is that this whole notion is relatively new and merely a cultural elaboration, our own sexual mythology.

In ancient Greece, no one believed that all men were naturally attracted to other men. There was no a priori essence that predisposed them to that kind of desire. In fact, if you read the very work you're citing, he makes it a point to say that those same-sex desires in *certain* men came from their same-sex *experiences* as boys. They weren't born with it, they acquired it. And it wasn't something that everyone had the capacity for, only the enlightened, the wealthy, and the male could acquire this kind of desire *through* same-sex behavior at a certain age. This isn't the modern homosexual as we know it. It's something else entirely.

If you tried to describe to them the woman that desires other women, they'd look at you like you were crazy. If you tried to tell them that men of all classes could have these kinds of desires, they would be aghast. And if you told them that these men were simply born this way, they'd think you were a loon. They 'knew' that this was an acquired and enlightened desire that had to be worked towards. Just like we 'know' that it's actually something innate.

>A duck is a duck. A duck in ancient Greece is no different than a duck now

Except the very demarcation of certain objects in the world into the category of duck is a product of social forces. At best, you're taking a current demarcation and applying it retrospectively to a group of people that wouldn't have demarcated in the same way. You're making a category for people. That's projecting your own assumptions into history.

And, more realistically, we're not talking about a duck. We're talking about a swordfish and a whale. They may both be swimming in water, but they're two entirely different things. When we look back at other behaviors in different times or in different cultures and make an comparison with another set of behaviors in a different time and space, we're making an arbitrary cohesion. We're strategically disregarding differences and overemphasizing similarities to make them appear to be analogous.

Perhaps another example. Kinship used to be the backbone of Anthropology, but recently it has fallen by the wayside after Anthropologists realized that kinship itself was a Western construction that they were projecting into other cultures (much in the same way that the category of homosexual has been projected into other times and spaces). An Anthropologist would draw a quick family true that went something like "Mother + Father = Children". Then they would go into a culture and say to someone "Now, who is your mother?" Seems harmless, right?

Except mother means a lot more than the woman who gave birth to you (just look at adoption cases or surrogacy cases...there's clearly something that has nothing to do with biology in that term). It implies a specific social relationship between that person, their children, and their male partners (assuming they even had one). (just think about our idea of maternal instinct, our expectations that come with sharing biogenetic substance with a child, our normative gender performances...all things that are specific to our culture) These other cultures had women who had children and who had relationships with men (who sometimes were biologically related to the children, sometimes not), but their roles in these relationships were very different. They weren't "mothers", they were women with biological connections to offspring. Everything else about them was different and far from analogous.

The same goes for homosexuality. There may have been people who engaged in same-sex behaviors, but they're radically different from our category of 'homosexual'. Because homosexual isn't just describing same-sex behavior, it comes with a slew of other assumptions and expectations that are specific to our time and space.

[TheEschaton]

>A duck is a duck. A duck in ancient Greece is no different than a duck now

Except the very demarcation of certain objects in the world into the category of duck is a product of social forces. At best, you're taking a current demarcation and applying it retrospectively to a group of people that wouldn't have demarcated in the same way. You're making a category for people. That's projecting your own assumptions into history.

Ah yes, so, by naming the duck a duck, we've forced it into a category that the duck doesn't necessarily conform to. THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S NOT A DUCK.

You're fucking nuts, dude. I think you need to step back from the cultural anthro for a bit and get a fucking grip.

-TheE-

[KDLMAJERE]

A lesson in Linguistics/Social Theory

Okay, it's becoming increasingly clear that there's something I'm not communicating very well. That's because it's an assumption on my part that I'm working with, and it may prove useful for this discussion. So brace yourself for another concept that is really applicable. We'll see how people feel about it.

De Saussure, in the late 1940's, wrote a book outlining what he termed the arbitrariness of the sign. It's taken for granted as fact in the social sciences at this point. I'm going to describe his linguistic theory as it's applied in other social sciences. The three terms that are important to know are sign, signified, and signifier.

Briefly outlined, think of the sign as the combination of a word and its concept. We'll say table. So the sign of table is comprised of the signifier and the signified. The signified is the physical table you're talking about, and the signifier is the concept of table. When you say "table" you're referencing the physical table, but what you're actually invoking is the concept of table, right? I say "table" to you, and you immediately conjure up an image of a table and all of the random and not so random associations you have with tables. (how they're used, what they should be made of, maybe your personal dining room table, etc)

The important point is this disconnect between the *physicality* of the object and the *concept* that references it. The physical table is different than the concept of the table (think again about the assumptions you have about how to use a table, for instance. They have nothing to do with the physical table, just your idea of what a table is) So when I say table, in theory I'm talking about some physical objectively real object, but really what I'm talking about is some subjective concept of table.

So keeping in mind that disconnect, let's apply this to the discussion we've been having. Let's break down homosexuality. The *physicality* of homosexuality is same-sex behavior, but the *concept* of homosexuality is different (it includes same-sex behavior in certain circumstances and not others, same-sex desire, innate and immutable homosexual essence/gene/soul/etc, male and famel, etc). we see same-sex behavior, and we immediately associate it with your concept of homosexuality. That physical behavior and that concept are actually two different things, but they're linked in our mind as the sign for homosexuality.

So when we look back in history, say the Greeks again, we see this same-sex behavior, this physicality and then we immediately apply our *concept* of homosexuality to it, which is different than the physicality, but it is linked in our minds. What social constructionists are pointing out is that while the physical behavior may be the same, the *concepts* associated with it aren't the same. So to use the sign of homosexuality in an instance of same-sex behavior is to import a concept that isn't analogous to a physicality that may be. In the same way that we wouldn't look the male victim of rape by another man (presuming the victim doesn't have any other same-sex behaviors or desires) as the same as a man who consenually engages in regular same-sex behavior as the same thing (only one of those is considered to be homosexuality even though the *physicality* of both acts is the same), we can't go back and look at same-sex behavior in different times and spaces as the same as same-sex behavior in this time and space. They're not homosexuals, they're people who engaged in same-sex behaviors. Homosexual the sign carries a signified (the physical act of same-sex behavior) *and* a signified (our *concept*, our cultural assumptions that are extraneous to that physicality). To import that entire sign to a different situation is to unwittingly import a concept that just doesn't apply.

Didn't turn out to be short, but none of my posts are ;) These things don't come in sound bytes. Hopefully this helps to at least make my argument more clear.

[KDLMAJERE]

>THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S NOT A DUCK

PHYSICALLY it's still the same thing, but the mere act of calling it a duck is to import a number of assumptions and judgements that have nothing to do with the physicality. We're not arguing that the PHYSICALITY of same-sex behavior isn't transhistorical and transcultural in *some* sense, we're arguing about something less obvious but far more important. Same-sex behavior and homosexuality are two different things that have an arbitrary link in our society. The same-sex behavior may apply, but the homosexuality doesn't. Just read the post above if you want a full explanation of what I'm talking about.

[Edited on 4-8-2004 by KDLMAJERE]

You could float on all that hot air.

[KDLMAJERE]

I forgot to add something...

the whole arbitriness of the sign..

The connection between the physical object and the concept you're invoking is arbitrary. All those ideas we have about when to use a table, how to use a table, what you can and can't put on a table, etc have nothing to do with the *physicality* of table. That connection between the physicality and the concept is real, but only in our minds. That's the big point. That connection between same-sex behavior and that concept of homosexuality is arbitrary, a cultural construction of a particular group of people in a particular time.

Phew, time to go get drunk.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by KDLMAJERE
Same-sex behavior and homosexuality are two different things that have an arbitrary link in our society

I'm not arguing that they're the same. And while this theory has some interesting points to it, even some valid points, it seems to be flawed in that it separately categorizes similar things based on minutae. At least, it's a flaw to me. Scarlet might not be the same as crimson but they're both red. Another flaw is that social construction doesn't seem to allow for anything other than cultural redefinition of everything. Culture doesn't exist in a vacuum. Genetics, biology, environment all have their effect which the theory doesn't seem to have any room for.

In any case, I honestly don't see it as having any real significance to society as a whole either. It's designed to be talked about by academicians in an academic environment and be understoood in all its ramifications only by those who care enough to spend years studying it.

Maybe down the road it'll revolutionize the social science or maybe it'll be replaced by something else. But it's almost certainly never going to be something people as a whole care about. Not that that reflects poorly on it. Most people don't care about quantum physics either. But if it's expected to actually make a difference in societal expectations and beliefs, I doubt it'll succeed in its present form.

But hey, I had fun. I love a good arguement and ones where I learn something are the best. And if you could rattle off the names and locations of all those extra genders you mentioned in passing earlier, I'd love to look them up and read about them.

Raven

[longshot]

I seriously hope you get extra credit for all of this.

You are a sad, sad, man.

[KDLMAJERE]

>In any case, I honestly don't see it as having any real significance to society as a whole either. It's designed to be talked about by academicians in an academic environment and be understoood in all its ramifications only by those who care enough to spend years studying it.

You're right and you're not. The jargon (and believe me, I've been doing my best to translate between academic language and regular English...which is a middle ground that neither side is happy with) makes it impossible to understand. All of this is stated in overly complicated terms. Figure that the combination of every idea I've argued for is about 2000 pages worth of reading from primary texts. But the language is different than its use. Queer people arguing for a biological basis for queer sexualities are digging a hole that is hard to work out of. Think of it this way...every time someone says "I'm legitimate because I was born this way", they're saying that heterosexuality was also innate. And if heterosexuality was innate, you can also use the argument that the species depends on it (even though, as I just argued, opposite-sex behavior is very different from heterosexuality), which means that heterosexuality will always trump queer sexualities. It's only by understanding all sexualities as constructed that we can work our ways out of this losing situation. Though, as we have all come to realize, these ideas don't work well with sound bytes. So it's hard to make them easily and universally accessible. In my mind, that's potentially more damaging than the "We were born that way" argument will ever be.

>I seriously hope you get extra credit for all of this.

>You are a sad, sad, man.

Actually, I've had an alterior motive all along. I'm writing a thesis that involves a lot of these concepts, and one of my preoccupations is making the thesis accessible to activists and still acceptable to academics. I've been testing my limits with academic concepts and jargon on people who aren't familiar with it all along. I'm trying to find a writing style that people can more easily understand than what is usually written in the texts that touch on these subjects (and if you think my posts were difficult to understand, you should just try and read the primary texts I'm drawing on). I've got a better idea of what I can get away with and what I can't. I'm not a sad man at all, I'm a more educated man for this experience.

[KDLMAJERE]

>>And if you could rattle off the names and locations of all those extra genders you mentioned in passing earlier, I'd love to look them up and read about them.

The possibilities are endless. Try Malinoswki's studies on Trobriand Islanders. Kath Weston's "Families We Choose" for the BEST enthnography on queer sexualities in the modern US ever written (and this isn't just opinion, it's accepted in the academic community). John D'Emilio's "Capitalism and Gay Sexuality" article (which can be found in its original journal, which I don't remember, or in the "Gay and Lesbian Reader"). Find material on Greek Societies (highly contested, you'll have to read a lot to find your opinion on things), the Trobriand Islanders, the Bardache (Native American subjectivities...try Guetierrez and Wilson for two very different approaches), the Hidjra (spelling, so sorry) (tons of information is available...try "Language and Sexuality" which is a book with quite a few fantastic articles, one of which focuses on the Hidjra), Carol Danely and Sylvia Yanagisako's "Naturalizing Power" collection, etc. There's more to read than anyone can ever get through. I wish I had some of my old syllabi in front of me, for more citations and more precise citations...but I don't, sorry. Oh, try "Estelle Freedoman's "Social Construction of Sexuality in the U.S." for a great basic article (though I disagree with a lot of what she says...don't tell her though, I'm taking a class with her now <g>)

Jesse

[KDLMAJERE]

>Culture doesn't exist in a vacuum. Genetics, biology, environment all have their effect which the theory doesn't seem to have any room for.

Heh, one last post.

I would challenge you to question the binary between genetics/nature and culture. The idea that they are two discrete domains that are separate from one another is also a very Western and recent notion (One could argue that it has its antecedents in Frances Bacon's work, but I'd say it was after that). I would instead look at the body as malluable. It's grows, but it isn't in a vaccum at all. We know the body is affected by diet, we know that the uses of the body are affected by sexual mythologies, we know that the brain is HIGHLY affected by environment (a human being, despite having genes for it, cannot learn a verbal language if they haven't been exposed to one after a certain period in their life, for example), we know that most syndromes and diseases are a product of environment, and we know that things as basic as appetite and sexual desire (think the sugar tooth (and mostly Western phenomenon) or what we term "fetishes") are all affected by culture. The divide between biology and culture is itself a cultural assumption. Instead of buying into that, let's recognize that culture actually alters and determines the body (think about the medical practice of taking anyone who isn't born with clear male or female genitalia "biologically" female or male by arbitrarily choosing a genetalia to stay and every other expression that contradicts that to be surgically removed). Biology is actually more often than not a physical manifestation of culture. (A more theoretical approach to this would be in Pierrre Bordieu's "Outline of Theory and Practice" and "Masculine Domination")

[KDLMAJERE]

Or Judith Butler's "Bodies That Matter" for more on biology as a cultural elaboration

[Latrinsorm]

I'm not going to pretend to have read all that, but if you have a " right before a ), it does a winking smiley, Jesse. Best way to get rid of it is click the disable smileys box thing below your post. :)

[Warriorbird]

Fair amount of evidence of homosexuality in pre-Greek Egypt. Not quite even as new as most people acknowledge it. I'm sure it goes back a long long ways.

[Warriorbird]

Malinowski's studies on the Trobianders, while brilliant, are a bit clouded over when one acknowledges his own sexual issues.

Reading his diary was a real eye opener in college.

[KDLMAJERE]

>Reading his diary was a real eye opener in college.

He gets a lot of crap for that, but come on...the guy was forced onto an Island with a group of people he didn't know, whose language he couldn't speak, and whose customs he was completely unfamiliar with. He was lonely, out of place, and miserable. Diaries are for venting. In his case, I think it was representative of the worst thoughts in his head, not his overall attitude about the experience.

Don't get me wrong, I'm actually not a Malinowski fan in the least, but I gotta be fair about the whole thing.